Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/16/2019 at 19:18:34 (UTC).

CARLTON DOUGLAS EDWARDS ET AL VS MIKE DAVIDYAN

Case Summary

On 03/23/2017 CARLTON DOUGLAS EDWARDS filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against MIKE DAVIDYAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK, DEIRDRE HILL and ROBERT B. BROADBELT. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5125

  • Filing Date:

    03/23/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK

DEIRDRE HILL

ROBERT B. BROADBELT

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

EDWARDS JUANITA DELORES

EDWARDS CARLTON DOUGHLAS

PASADENA COMMUNITY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP

EDWARDS CARLTON DOUGLAS

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

DAVIDYAN MIKE

DOES 1 TO 10

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

JOHNSON JULIUS ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

HARTSUYKER STRATMAN & WILLIAMS-ABREGO

CARPENTER GREGORY JAMES

 

Court Documents

Order

5/17/2019: Order

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

6/15/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

CORRECTED NOTICE OF HEARING; DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; ETC.

9/11/2018: CORRECTED NOTICE OF HEARING; DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; ETC.

Demurrer

11/20/2018: Demurrer

Declaration

12/4/2018: Declaration

Proof of Service by Mail

12/26/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Exhibit List

2/22/2019: Exhibit List

Minute Order

4/4/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

5/10/2019: Minute Order

AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1. FRAUD; 2. INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION; 3. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION; ETC.

5/10/2018: AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1. FRAUD; 2. INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION; 3. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION; ETC.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S ANTI-SLAPP MOTION

6/6/2017: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S ANTI-SLAPP MOTION

Unknown

6/27/2017: Unknown

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

7/3/2017: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

DECLARATION OF JULIUS JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE;

7/3/2017: DECLARATION OF JULIUS JOHNSON IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE;

AMENDED NOTICE OF RULING

7/21/2017: AMENDED NOTICE OF RULING

DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO VACATE ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN CAUSES OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF GREGORY J. CARPENTER

8/14/2017: DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO VACATE ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN CAUSES OF ACTION OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF GREGORY J. CARPENTER

Unknown

8/25/2017: Unknown

NOTICE OF HEARING; DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT; ETC.

8/29/2017: NOTICE OF HEARING; DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT; ETC.

120 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/21/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Carlton Doughlas Edwards (Plaintiff); Juanita Delores Edwards (Plaintiff); Pasadena Community Christian Fellowship (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 49; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) ((c/f 5-10-19 on court's motion)) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 49; Trial Setting Conference ((c/f 5-10-19 on court's motion)) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Order (RULING); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) (c/f...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CSR: Monica Castaneda/ #10323); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • at 08:31 AM in Department 49; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) ((c/f 5-10-19 on court's motion)) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 49; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 49; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff, Carlton Douglas Edwards) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Compel Deposition of Plain...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
245 More Docket Entries
  • 06/06/2017
  • Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by Mike Davidyan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Carlton Doughlas Edwards (Plaintiff); Juanita Delores Edwards (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2017
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2017
  • OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Carlton Doughlas Edwards (Plaintiff); Juanita Delores Edwards (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2017
  • COMPLAINT: 1. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC655125    Hearing Date: March 30, 2021    Dept: 49

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Carlton Douglas Edwards, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.

BC655125

v.

[Tentative] Ruling

Mike Davidyan, et al.  

Defendants.

Hearing Date: March 30, 2021

Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice

Cross-Defendants Carlton Douglas Edwards, Juanita Delores Edwards, and Pasadena Community Christian Fellowship’s Motions to:

(1) Deem Matters Admitted in the Request for Admissions, Set One

(2) Compel Further Responses to the Request for Admissions, Set One

(3) Compel Further Responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One

(4) Compel Further Responses to the Request for Production of Documents, Set One

Moving Party:  Cross-Defendants Carlton Douglas Edwards, Juanita Delores Edwards, and Pasadena Community Christian Fellowship

Responding Party:      None [Cross-Complainant Mike Davidyan]

Ruling: The motions are continued because of a service issue. If the service issue is addressed at the hearing, the Court grants the motions to compel further responses, denies the motion to deem matters admitted in the request for admissions, and grants monetary sanctions as modified.

Background

Date Filed

Motion Type

Reservation ID

Monetary Sanctions Requested

1/21/21

Request for admissions – no responses, i.e. deem matters admitted

372991282039

$3,181.65

2/1/21

Request for admissions – further responses

117392350955142395484972

$5,241.65

2/1/21

Form interrogatories and special interrogatories – further responses

506222359528207976631833

$7,061.65

2/1/21

Request for production of documents – further responses

304122388961681822680813

$2,821.65

As of March 24, 2021, Cross-Complainant did not file an opposition, which was due on March 17, 2021, i.e., nine court days before the scheduled hearing date. (Code Civ. Proc., §1005, subd. (b).)

Procedural Defect

In the interest of justice and out of an abundance of caution since no opposition has been filed,  the Court continues this hearing because of a service concern.

Cross-Defendants filed proofs of service annexed to their motions indicating that they served the motions by first class mail and electronic filing. Service by first class mail provides proper notice.

On February 5, 2021, the Court granted Cross-Defendants’ ex parte application advancing the hearing date for all of the discovery motions. In the Court’s minute order, Cross-Defendants were required to provide notice.

On February 5, 2021, Cross-Defendants filed a notice of ruling, which indicates that service was done via “electronic filing.” “Electronic filing is service by an electronic filing service provider whereby a receiving party receives electronic notification of service of a document. Electronic transmission is service by email, in which the receiving party actually receives the document. Electronic filing” is not the same as “electronic transmission.”

This distinction is critical because Cross-Defendants proffer no proof of an agreement by Cross-Complainant to accept service by electronic filing. Instead, Cross-Complainant agreed to electronic service via a stated email address. (See Paul A. de Lorimer Decl. Ex. B at 9/25/20 email [“Confirming that the email to use for electronic correspondence is mr8185785685@gmail.com. Please let us know if you would accept electronic service via this address as well.”] and 9/26/20 email [“Yes, please proceed.”].) That is not what occurred here and there is no proper proof of service of the shortened hearing dates. Cross-Defendants cannot otherwise rely on electronic transmission as proper service because Cross-Complainant is self- represented. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(c)(3)(B), 2.523(b)(3).)

Therefore, in the interests of justice, the Court continues this hearing so that Cross-Complainant receives proper notice of the actual hearing date.

To the extent that Cross-Complainant appears at the hearing and waives this issue and/or Cross-Defendants show valid proof of service at the hearing, the Court continues its analysis as follows.

Cross-Defendants Must Pay Additional Filing Fee

The motion to compel further responses to interrogatories involves two different sets of interrogatories, i.e., form interrogatories and special interrogatories. However, Cross-Defendants only paid one filing fee when this application is essentially two separate motions. Multiple motions should not be combined into a single filing. (See Govt. Code, § 70617, subd. (a)(4) [setting forth the required filing fee for each motion, application, or any other paper or request requiring a hearing].)

The Court orders Cross-Defendants to pay an additional $60 filing fee.

Legal Standard

No Responses to Request for Admissions

Where a party fails to respond to requests for admissions, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The court “shall” grant a motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Id., subd. (c).)

Further Responses to Request for Admissions

On receipt of a response to requests for admission, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) an answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete or (2) an objection to a particular request is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a).)

Further Responses to Interrogatories

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a), a court may order a party to serve a further response to an interrogatory when the court finds that: “(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete[;] (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate[; or] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.”

If a timely motion to compel a further response to an interrogatory has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure fully to answer the interrogatories. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (a), a court may order a party to serve a further response to a demand for inspection when the court finds that: “(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete[;] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive[; or] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

The burden is on the moving party to “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)

This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)

Discussion

Cross-Complainant filed no opposition to these motions, and there is nothing in the record suggesting Cross-Complainant has complied with his discovery obligations because his responses are unverified. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [“Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.”].) Accordingly, the Court grants the motions to compel further responses to the requests for admission, form interrogatories, and special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents. Cross-Complainant is ordered to serve verified further responses without objections within 20 days.

However, the Court denies Cross-Defendants’ motion to deem the matters admitted in the request for admissions. Although the responses are not verified, the Court finds in the interests of justice to order further responses. As the moving party filed two separate motions on this set of discovery, the Court exercises its discretion to choose this path. If the cross-complainant fails to fully follow the terms of this order, the Court will not hesitate to deem the Request for Admissions admitted in a subsequent motion.

Although monetary sanctions are warranted given the misuse of discovery, Cross-Defendants’ seek fees which are not reasonable. The four motions are substantially similar, involving the same facts, the same procedural history, and many of the same exhibits. The only major differences are the separate statements, though they each repeat key arguments.

Date Filed

Motion Type

Reservation ID

Hours Spent Preparing Motion

1/21/21

Request for admissions – no responses, i.e. deem matters admitted

372991282039

11.6

2/1/21

Request for admissions – further responses

117392350955142395484972

23.9

2/1/21

Form interrogatories and special interrogatories – further responses

506222359528207976631833

33.0

2/1/21

Request for production of documents – further responses

304122388961681822680813

11.8

Additionally, the multiple hours for appearance time for each motion is unreasonable because there is one joint hearing and counsel is likely to appear remotely (and should reasonably do so) because of Covid-19. Finally, because Cross-Defendant did not file opposition, the Court awards no fees for reviewing an opposition and preparing a reply.

Accordingly, the Court awards a total of $2,046.60, which includes four $61.65 requested filing fees and $1,800 in attorney fees for 9.0 hours at a $200.00 hourly rate.

Conclusion

To the extent that Cross-Complainant appears at the hearing and waives this issue and/or Cross-Defendants show valid proof of service at the hearing, the Court grants Cross-Defendants’ motions by ordering Cross-Complainant to serve further verified responses without objections within 20 days and pay $2,046.60 in monetary sanctions.

Date: March 30, 2021

Honorable Stuart M. Rice

Judge of the Superior Court