This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/26/2020 at 02:35:31 (UTC).

BONNIE SCHREIBER VS CUCINA BENE INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/17/2017 BONNIE SCHREIBER filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CUCINA BENE INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARC D. GROSS, MASTER CALENDAR, LORI ANN FOURNIER, RICHARD J. BURDGE JR. and MARGARET MILLER BERNAL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1811

  • Filing Date:

    05/17/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Norwalk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MARC D. GROSS

MASTER CALENDAR

LORI ANN FOURNIER

RICHARD J. BURDGE JR.

MARGARET MILLER BERNAL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

SCHREIBER BONNIE

ADELI NADEREH

MILAGERDY SARINEH HACUPIAN

SAPIEN REMICK SHAVERDI

MATTHEW DAVIS AN

DAVIS MATTHEW

SARINEH HACUPIAN MILAGERDY AN

ABRISHAMKAR SANZ

RASTEGAR PEGAH

Defendants and Respondents

CUCINA BENE INC

JAVAHERIAN BAHRAM

DOES 1 TO 50

CUCINA BENE INC.

ABE E. SIANI

SIANI ABE E.

BAHRAM JAVAHERIAN AN

ABE E. SIANI AN

SIANI ABE E

CUCINA BENE INC A CA CORP

CUCINA BENE INC. A CALIFORNIA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

SCHREIBER EDWIN C.

SCHREIBER & SCHREIBER INC.

DARGAHI SHAWN S. ESQ.

MOTALLEBI SHAHIN LAW OFFICES OF

MOTALLEBI SHAHIN ESQ

DARGAHI SHAHRAM

AGHABALA PAYAM PAUL

MOTALLEBI SHAHIN

SHABANI NATALI PAUL

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

DILTS GREGORY A.

HARTSUYKER STRATMAN & WILLIAMS-ABREGO

VEATCH CARLSON

GOLDBY GLENN STEWART

DILTS GREGORY A. ESQ.

BAISCH KENNETH WILSON ESQ.

MACKEY ROBERT THOMAS ESQ.

BAISCH KENNETH

BANAYAN KOOROSH

 

Court Documents

Request - REQUEST REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT, JUDGMENT

7/28/2020: Request - REQUEST REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT, JUDGMENT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: REGARDING V...)

7/28/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: REGARDING V...)

Substitution of Attorney

1/31/2020: Substitution of Attorney

Substitution of Attorney

9/24/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

9/9/2019: Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

Order - ORDER HEARING OF 8/7/19

8/7/2019: Order - ORDER HEARING OF 8/7/19

Notice of Ruling

7/23/2019: Notice of Ruling

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES DEFENDANT ABE SIANI TO FORM INTERROGATORIES-EMPLOYMENT, SET ONE

6/19/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES DEFENDANT ABE SIANI TO FORM INTERROGATORIES-EMPLOYMENT, SET ONE

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Request

9/13/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Request

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice of Hearing

1/31/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice of Hearing

Notice of Related Case

1/31/2018: Notice of Related Case

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Memorandum - Other

5/11/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Memorandum - Other

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-09-07 00:00:00

9/7/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-09-07 00:00:00

Stipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial, Final Status Conference,Mandatory Settlement Conference and Pre-Trial cutoff datesMSC TO4/9/2019 8:30 A.M. DEPT. F; FSC TO: 5/2/2019 8:

11/21/2018: Stipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial, Final Status Conference,Mandatory Settlement Conference and Pre-Trial cutoff datesMSC TO4/9/2019 8:30 A.M. DEPT. F; FSC TO: 5/2/2019 8:

Substitution of Attorney

10/31/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Notice - Of Hearing

1/31/2018: Notice - Of Hearing

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

1/18/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

COMPLAINT FOR: 1. INVASION OF PRIVACY; ETC

5/17/2017: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. INVASION OF PRIVACY; ETC

155 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/04/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2020
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Order to Show); Filed by Cucina Bene Inc (Defendant); ABE E. SIANI (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal (of Complaint filed 12/22/2017 by Pegah Rastegar, Shirin Nagashi & Sanaz Abrishamkar ONLY, With Prejudice); Filed by Pegah Rastegar (Plaintiff); Shirin Nagashi (Plaintiff); Sanz Abrishamkar (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F; Order to Show Cause Re: (regarding verification case BC688104 is at issue) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketRequest (for Entry of Judgment; Judgment); Filed by CUCINA BENE, INC., (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketRequest (for Entry of Judgment, Judgment); Filed by Cucina Bene Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketRequest (for Entry of Judgment, Judgment); Filed by ABE E SIANI (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketRequest (Request for Entry of Judgment, Judgment); Filed by Abe E. Siani (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
284 More Docket Entries
  • 07/28/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Bonnie Schreiber (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Sarineh Hacupian Milagerdy (Plaintiff); Matthew Davis (Plaintiff); an SARINEH HACUPIAN MILAGERDY (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by NADEREH ADELI (Plaintiff); REMICK SHAVERDI SAPIEN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Bonnie Schreiber (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. INVASION OF PRIVACY; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC661811    Hearing Date: July 16, 2020    Dept: SEC

SCHREIBER v. CUCINA BENE, INC.

CASE NO.: BC661811

HEARING: 07/16/2020

[Remote appearances are encouraged and will be given priority.]

#12

TENTATIVE RULING

The Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. is placed OFF-CALENDAR. No Moving Papers with a corresponding reservation number have been FILED/LODGED with the Court.

Court Clerk to give Notice.

Case Number: BC661811    Hearing Date: March 05, 2020    Dept: SEC

SCHREIBER v. CUCINA BENE, INC.

CASE NO.:  BC661811

HEARING: 03/05/2020

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

#8(*AMENDED*)

TENTATIVE ORDER 

At the hearing, the Court will hear oral argument on the merits of Defendants’ CUCINA BENE, INC.’s Motions for Summary Judgment or Alternatively Motions for Summary Adjudication as to (1) Plaintiff SCHREIBER’s Complaint; (2) Plaintiffs MILAGERDY and DAVIS’s Complaint; and (3) Plaintiffs ADELI and SAPIEN’s COMPLAINT.

Case Number: BC661811    Hearing Date: February 25, 2020    Dept: SEC

SCHREIBER v. CUCINA BENE INC.

CASE NO.:  BC661811

HEARING:  2/25/20

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

#5

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiffs Adeli and Sapien’s unopposed motion to compel Defendant Cucina Bene, Inc. to provide further responses to form interrogatories – general, set one is GRANTED. Defendant Cucina Bene, Inc. is ordered to serve further responses within 20 days. Sanctions are imposed against Cucina Bene in the sum of $860.00, payable within 30 days.

Moving Parties to give NOTICE.

Plaintiffs Adeli and Sapien move to compel further responses to form interrogatories pursuant to CCP § 2030.300.

CCP § 2030.300 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to interrogatories if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2030.300(b).)

Cucina Bene, Inc.’s responses consisted of boilerplate objections.

The court finds the responses are insufficient and evasive.  Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.  (CCP 2030.220(a).)  If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.  (CCP 2030.220(b).)  If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.  (CCP 2030.220(c).) 

Cucina Bene, Inc. owes a duty to provide complete and straightforward responses. Accordingly, further responses are ordered.

Sanctions: CCP 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h), and 2033.290(d) authorize the court to impose a sanction against any party/attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

Here, sanctions are appropriate because Cucina Bene served evasive and incomplete responses to discovery. The court finds that Defendants’ total request of $860.00 is reasonable. Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Cucina Bene in the sum of $860.00, payable within 30 days.

Case Number: BC661811    Hearing Date: January 30, 2020    Dept: SEC

SCHREIBER v. CUCINA BENE, INC.

CASE NO.:  BC661811

HEARING: 01/30/2020

JUDGE: MARGARET M. BERNAL

#9

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Defendants’ CUCINA BENE, INC.’s Motions for Summary Judgment or Alternatively Motions for Summary Adjudication as to (1) Plaintiff SCHREIBER’s Complaint; (2) Plaintiffs MILAGERDY and DAVIS’s Complaint; and (3) Plaintiffs ADELI and SAPIEN’s COMPLAINT are OFF-CALENDAR.

II. Defendant ABE SIANI’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs MILAGERDY and DAVIS’s Complaint is GRANTED. Defendant ABE SIANI’s Alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication of MILAGERDY and DAVIS’s first through fourth causes of action are MOOT.

III. Defendant ABE SIANI’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs ADELI and SAPIEN’s Complaint is GRANTED. Defendant ABE SIANI’s Alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication of ADELI and SAPIEN’s fifth cause of action is MOOT.

Court Clerk to give Notice.

Plaintiffs Milagerdy and Davis’s Notice of Joinder and Joinder to Plaintiffs’ Adeli and Sapien’s Opposition is DENIED. It is not readily apparent how the arguments applicable to Adeli and Sapien also apply to Milagerdy and Davis. Nor Milagerdy and Davis assisted the Court in indicating how those arguments would be applicable.

Defendants CUCINA BENE, INC. and ABE SIANA combined three motions for summary judgment into one— (1) a Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff BONNIE SCHREIBER’s Complaint; (2) a Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiffs SARINEH HACUPIAN MILAGERDY and MATHEW DAVIS’s Complaint; and (3) a Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs NADEREH ADELI and REMICK SHAVERDI SAPIEN’s Complaint. Notwithstanding the manner in which it was filed, the Court will address each Motion separately.

On September 24, 2019, a Substitution of Attorney was entered indicating that Defendant ABE E. SIANI’s (“Siani”) former counsel was substituting out of the case, and that Siani would proceed as a pro se litigant.

On October 22, 2019 (after the Subject Motion was filed), Defendant CUCINA BENE, INC.’s (“Cucina Bene”) former counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel was GRANTED. As of January 27, 2020, no substitution of attorney has been filed, and there is no indication that Cucina Bene has acquired new representation. A corporation cannot represent itself in this Court. This prohibition stems from the notion that a corporate representative who would likely appear on behalf of the corporation would be engaged in the unlicensed practice of law. (Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284, fn. 5.) Under “a long-standing common law rule of procedure, a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.” (CLD Const., Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.) Although Cucina Bene’s Motion was filed by an attorney, the entity cannot proceed in this action in its current unrepresented state. The Motion(s) as to Cucina Bene, Inc. are placed OFF-CALENDAR.

Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication as to Plaintiff SCHREIBER’s Complaint

Plaintiff SCHREIBER’s Complaint is only asserted against Defendant Cucina Bene and Non-Moving Defendant JAHAVERIAN. None of the claims are directed against Defendant Siani. This Motion is placed OFF-CALENDAR as indicated above.

Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication as to Plaintiffs MILAGERDY and DAVIS’s Complaint

Plaintiffs MILAGERDY and DAVIS’s Complaint, filed on July 20, 2017, asserts the following causes of action against Defendants CUCINA BENE, INC., SIANI, and Non-Moving Defendant JAHAVERIAN: (1) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (2) Invasion of Privacy; and (3) Negligence. Milagerdy and Davis assert their fourth cause of action for Negligent Supervision against Defendant SIANI only.

Because Cucina Bene’s Motion is OFF-CALENDAR, the Court will limit its ruling to the claims for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Invasion of Privacy; Negligence; and Negligent Supervision claims against Defendant Siani only, below.

Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication as to Plaintiffs ADELI and SAPIEN’s Complaint

Plaintiffs ADELI and SAPIEN’s Complaint, filed on May 30, 2017, asserts the following causes of action: (1) Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion into Seclusion); (2) Violation of Cal. Civ. Code §1708.8; (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (4) Negligence Per Se; and (5) Negligence. The first through fourth causes of action are only asserted against Non-Moving Defendant JAHAVERIAN. The fifth cause of action for negligence is asserted against Siani and Cucina Bene.

Because Cucina Bene’s Motion is OFF-CALENDAR, the Court will limit its ruling to the claim for Negligence against Siani only, below

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (MILAGERDY and DAVIS)

The elements of IIED are: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by defendant; (2) made with intent to cause, or with reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (3) severe emotional suffering; and (4) actual and proximate causation. (Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1259.)

In Support of his Motion, Siani states in his declaration “At no time during the time I knew JAVAHERIAN did I ever observe or hear of any inappropriate conduct by JAVAHERIAN, including, but not limited to, any comments of a sexual nature, or any inappropriate or sexual touching or gestures. At no time did he ever show or share with me any intimate or sexually explicit photographs or videos of anyone.” (Siani Decl., ¶11.)

The Oppositions filed by Rastegar, Nagashi, Abrishamkar; and Adeli and Sapien offer no substantive arguments/evidence to rebut Siani’s contentions.

Siani’s unopposed Motion for Summary Adjudication of Milagerdy and Davis’s first cause of action for IIED is GRANTED.

Invasion of Privacy (MILAGERDY AND DAVIS)

The tort of “invasion of privacy” or “intrusion upon seclusion” has two elements, “(1) intrusion into a private place, conversation or matter, (2) in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person.” (Shulman v. Group W Productions (1998) 18 Cal.4th 200, 231.)

In Support of his Motion, Siani states in his declaration “At no time during the time I knew JAVAHERIAN did I ever observe or hear of any inappropriate conduct by JAVAHERIAN, including, but not limited to, any comments of a sexual nature, or any inappropriate or sexual touching or gestures. At no time did he ever show or share with me any intimate or sexually explicit photographs or videos of anyone.” (Siani Decl., ¶11.)

The Oppositions filed by Rastegar, Nagashi, Abrishamkar; and Adeli and Sapien offer no substantive arguments/evidence to rebut Siani’s contentions.

Siani’s unopposed Motion for Summary Adjudication of Milagerdy and Davis’s second cause of action for Invasion of Privacy is GRANTED.

Negligence/Negligent Hiring and Supervision (MILAGERDY and DAVIS and ADELI and SAPIEN)

Plaintiffs’ allegations within their respective complaints are similar. For purposes of brevity, the Court will cite to Adeli and Sapien’s Complaint in order to lay out the facts of this case. Plaintiffs Adeli and Sapien allege that from November 2016 to May 2017, they dined at Cucina Bene Italian Restaurant on at least four occasions. (Complaint ¶12.) Adeli and Sapien further allege that they used the restroom facilities at Cucina Bene for at least a “few times” when they dined there. (Complaint ¶13.) “On May 10, 2017, [Adeli and Sapien] became aware that Defendant Bahram Javaherian, co-owner of Cucina Bene Italian Restaurant, has been arrested for hiding tiny video cameras in Cucina’s single-person women’s restroom, and recording customers as they used the facilities.” (Complaint¶18.) Moving Defendant Siani is alleged to be “an officer, director, and shareholder of Cucina Bene, Inc….” (Complaint ¶5.)

As indicated above, Siani moves for summary adjudication of Plaintiffs MILAGERDY and DAVIS’s third cause of action for negligence and fourth cause of action for negligent hiring and supervision; and of Plaintiffs’ ADELI and SAPIEN’s fifth cause of action for negligence.

The elements of negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages. (See e.g., County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.) “An employer may be liable to a third person for the employer’s negligence in hiring or retaining an employee who is incompetent or unfit.” (Federico v. Superior Court (Jenry G.) (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1207, 1213.) “[A]n employer’s duty…is breached only when the employer knows, or should know, facts which would warn a reasonable person that the employee presents an undue risk of harm to third persons in light of the particular work to be performed.” (Id. at 1213.)

In Support of his Motion, Siani states in his declaration “At no time during the time I knew JAVAHERIAN did I ever observe or hear of any inappropriate conduct by JAVAHERIAN, including, but not limited to, any comments of a sexual nature, or any inappropriate or sexual touching or gestures. At no time did he ever show or share with me any intimate or sexually explicit photographs or videos of anyone. [¶] At no time after JAVAHERIAN and I formed CBI did I receive any complaints from any CBI employees, my family members or customers of the restaurant about any inappropriate conduct by JAVAHERIAN, including, but not limited to, any comments of a sexual nature, or any inappropriate or sexual touching or gestures, nor did I observe any such conduct. At no time did I ever observe any type of camera, video recording device or any device that I was not familiar with inside the women’s restroom of that restaurant. At no time did I receive any complaints about the women’s restroom nor was I asked by CBI employees or restaurant customers about any recording devises or any other, unfamiliar devises in the women’s restroom. At no time prior to JAVAHERIAN’s arrest was I aware that there had been any kind of camera or video recording or other devices placed in the women’s restroom.” (Siani Decl., ¶¶11-12.)

Adeli and Sapien argue in their Opposition that “the issue of whether CBI’s procedures on how to clean and inspect the restrooms were adequate to prevent the illegal acts of JAVAHERIAN, and the issue of whether CBI’s procedures were followed are questions of act entitled to a full evidentiary hearing. Moreover, the issue of whether SIANI and CBI were negligent in not monitoring the area above and adjacent to the women’s dressing room, and whether SIANI and CBI were negligent in not taking reasonable measures to make the women’s restroom reasonably safe by supervising Cucina Bene Restaurant’s officers and/or employees who had access to the bathroom are questions of fact entitled to full evidentiary hearing.” (Adeli/Sapien SS No. 128.) Similarly, Rastegar, Nagashi, and Abrishamkar argue in their Opposition that “there are questions of fact as to whether CBI’s procedures on how to clean and inspect the restrooms were adequate to prevent the illegal acts of Javaherian. Moreover, the issue of whether CBI’s procedures were followed is a question of fact entitled to full evidentiary hearing. Based on the foregoing, in the case at hand, there are multiple triable issues of material fact….” (Opposition 7: 7-14.) However, no evidence is submitted to support these arguments. Consequently, the Opposing Plaintiffs’ unsupported assertions amount to speculation. “Speculation, however, is not evidence.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 864.) Plaintiffs have failed to raise a triable issue of material fact.

Defendant SIANI’s is entitled to summary adjudication of Plaintiffs MILAGERDY and DAVIS’s fourth cause of action for Negligent Hiring and Supervision; and Plaintiffs’ ADELI and SAPIEN’s fifth cause of action for Negligence.

Because Plaintiffs ADELI and SAPIEN only asserted one sole cause of action for Negligence against SIANI, there are no remaining claims asserted against SIANI by ADELI and SAPIEN, and SIANI’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Similarly, because summary adjudication was granted as to Plaintiffs MILAGERDY and DAVIS’s claims of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Invasion of Privacy, and Negligent Hiring and Supervision, there are no remaining claims asserted against SIANI by MILAGERDY and DAVIS, and SIANI’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Siani’s Evidentiary Objections

Defendant SIANI’s evidentiary objections are OVERRULED for failure to submit a proposed order in compliance with Rule 3.1354 of the California Rules of Court.

Case Number: BC661811    Hearing Date: December 19, 2019    Dept: SEC

SCHREIBER v. CUCINA BENE, INC.

CASE NO.: BC661811

HEARING: 12/19/19

#5

TENTATIVE ORDER

  1. Plaintiffs NADAREH ADELI and REMICK S. SAPIEN’s unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant ABE SIANI’s Further Responses to Request for Admissions (set one) is GRANTED.

  2. Plaintiffs NADAREH ADELI and REMICK S. SAPIEN’s unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant ABE SIANI’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories - General (set one) is GRANTED.

  1. Plaintiffs NADAREH ADELI and REMICK S. SAPIEN’s unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant ABE SIANI’s Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one) is GRANTED.

  1. Plaintiffs NADAREH ADELI and REMICK S. SAPIEN’s unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant ABE SIANI’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – Employment (set one) is GRANTED.

  1. Plaintiffs NADAREH ADELI and REMICK S. SAPIEN’s unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant CUCINA BENE, INC.’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories - Employment (set one) is GRANTED.

  2. Plaintiffs NADAREH ADELI and REMICK S. SAPIEN’s unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant CUCINA BENE, INC.’s Further Responses to Form Interrogatories - General (set one) is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give Notice.

No Opposition(s) filed as of December 17, 2019.

The unopposed Motions to Compel Further are granted. Defendants ABE SIANI and CUCINA BENE, INC. are ORDERED to provide further verified responses no later than 30 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended pursuant to agreement of the parties.

Further, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established an entitlement to monetary sanctions. As indicated above, no Oppositions have been filed as of December 17, 2019. Defendants have not acted with substantial justification, and the Court is unaware of other circumstances that would make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Plaintiffs’ requests for monetary sanctions, as sought, are granted.

Defendant ABE SIANI is ORDERED to pay Plaintiffs and their counsel of record sanctions in the amount of $1,840.00 ($400 x 4) ($240 costs) no later than 30 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended pursuant to agreement of the parties.

Defendant CUCINA BENE, INC. is ORDERED to pay Plaintiffs and their counsel of record sanctions in the amount of $920.00 ($400 hr. x 2) ($120 costs) no later than 30 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended pursuant to agreement of the parties.