Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/18/2019 at 22:58:11 (UTC).

AGHAJAN MELAMED VS MILLENNIUM BILTMORE HOTEL ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/29/2017 AGHAJAN MELAMED filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against MILLENNIUM BILTMORE HOTEL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4159

  • Filing Date:

    08/29/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MELAMED AGHAJAN

Defendants and Respondents

WHB BILTMORE LLC

WHB CORPORATION

MILLENNIUM BILTMORE HOTEL

RHM MANAGEMENT LLC

DOES 1 TO 50

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF RON A. ROSEN JANFAZA

JANFAZA RON A.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

2/13/2019: Minute Order

SUMMONS

8/29/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

8/29/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Aghajan Melamed (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC674159    Hearing Date: June 25, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One)

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On August 29, 2017, Plaintiff Aghajan Melamed (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant WHB Biltmore, LLC (erroneously sued as Millenium Biltmore Hotel and WHB Corporation) and RHM Management, LLC.  The complaint alleges negligence and premises liability for an incident that occurred on August 30, 2015.

On March 27, 2020, Defendant WHB Biltmore, LLC filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300. 

A trial setting conference is scheduled for June 25, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant WHB Biltmore, LLC (“Moving Defendant”) asks the Court to compel Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents (All Set One) within ten days of this hearing due to Plaintiff’s failure to serve timely verified responses.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.

DISCUSSION

The Court initially notes that opposing papers had be filed and personally served on June 12, 2020, at the latest, to conform with the mandates of California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.  No opposing papers were timely filed and served.  The Court exercises its discretion in refusing to consider any late opposition pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, subdivision (d).

On August 22, 2019, Moving Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) on Plaintiff by U.S. mail.  (Greco Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A-C.)  On February 12, 2020, Plaintiff served a mix of unverified objections and substantive responses(Greco Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. D-F.)

The Court find the motion to compel responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is properly denied.  A party responding to written discovery requests does not need to verify objections.  (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657.)  Plaintiff’s responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) consist of only objections and, thus, a motion to compel responses cannot be granted. Had Defendant wanted to challenge these objections, Defendant needed to file a motion to compel further responses.  Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300.

The Court also finds the motion to compel responses to Request for Production (Set One) is properly denied.  Substantive responses must be verified when intermixed with objections.  (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc., supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 657.)  Unverified substantive responses are akin to no responses at all.  (See Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)  When stripped of the unverified substantive responses, Plaintiff’s responses to Request for Production (Set One) consist merely of objections, which are satisfactory responses.  As such, the motion must be denied. further responses.  Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310.

The Court lastly finds that Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) are properly compelled.  Plaintiff provided substantive responses to interrogatory numbers 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, and 8.8.  However, the substantive responses were not verified. The remaining interrogatories were objected to.  ad Defendant wanted to challenge these objections, Defendant needed to file a motion to compel further responses.  Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to interrogatory numbers 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, and 8.8 in Form Interrogatories (Set One) on Moving Defendant within 20 days of this ruling.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions. 

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where WHB BILTMORE LLC is a litigant