This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/29/2020 at 07:59:43 (UTC).

GAGIK HARUTYUNYAN VS ALCO HOLDING CO ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/11/2017 GAGIK HARUTYUNYAN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ALCO HOLDING CO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Van Nuys Courthouse East located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARC D. GROSS, RICHARD J. BURDGE JR., JON R. TAKASUGI, HUEY P. COTTON, HOLLY E. KENDIG and THERESA M. TRABER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7305

  • Filing Date:

    04/11/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Van Nuys Courthouse East

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MARC D. GROSS

RICHARD J. BURDGE JR.

JON R. TAKASUGI

HUEY P. COTTON

HOLLY E. KENDIG

THERESA M. TRABER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

HARUTYUNYAN GAGIK

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

ALCOINVEST LLC

ALCO HOLDING COMPANY

DOES 1 TO 100

NEW ERA INVESTMENTS LLC

THIBAULT GEORGE RALPH

SHAHNAZARIAN ARTIN

Defendants and Respondents

ALCOINVEST LLC

ALCO HOLDING COMPANY

DOES 1 TO 100

NEW ERA INVESTMENTS LLC

Cross Plaintiffs, Intervenors and Not Classified By Court

UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

SHAHNAZARIAN ARTIN

420 COLLEGE A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Defendants and Cross Defendants

THIBAULT GEORGE RALPH

SHAHNAZARIAN ARTIN

420 COLLEGE A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

KAMARIAN GARABED ESQ.

Defendant and Cross Defendant Attorneys

MORSE ESQ FRANK P

LALAZARIAN DAVID

MORSE FRANK PATRICK

BENAVIDES JOEL L.

MCPIKE WILLIAM ROGER

Defendant, Cross Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

LALAZARIAN DAVID

BERGSTEN ROBERT TROY

AZRAN EIDO

BENAVIDES JOEL L.

MCPIKE WILLIAM ROGER

Intervenor Attorney

GILBERT WARREN L. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL INTERVENOR'S SUPPLEMENTAL INTERRO...)

9/8/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL INTERVENOR'S SUPPLEMENTAL INTERRO...)

Proof of Service by Mail

2/19/2020: Proof of Service by Mail

Case Management Statement

2/19/2020: Case Management Statement

Notice of Ruling

12/3/2019: Notice of Ruling

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER; EXHIBIT

12/3/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER; EXHIBIT

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

10/21/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Order - ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL

10/21/2019: Order - ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF DANIEL A. CANTOR, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND FOR SANCTIONS IN RE DEFENDANT THIB

10/17/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF DANIEL A. CANTOR, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND FOR SANCTIONS IN RE DEFENDANT THIB

Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

10/18/2019: Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

Proof of Personal Service

8/28/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Separate Statement

6/21/2019: Separate Statement

Declaration - DECLARATION OF EDO AZRAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

6/21/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF EDO AZRAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Notice - NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL, GARABED KAMARIAN

5/3/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL, GARABED KAMARIAN

Minute Order - Minute Order (Ex-Parte Proceedings)

12/27/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Ex-Parte Proceedings)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel further responses to form interro...)

12/3/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel further responses to form interro...)

DECLARATION OF EDO AZRAN RE MISTAKE/INADVERTENCE OF FILING PROPOSED INTERVENOR'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

2/15/2018: DECLARATION OF EDO AZRAN RE MISTAKE/INADVERTENCE OF FILING PROPOSED INTERVENOR'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

STIPULATION TO GRANT UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE; ORDER THEREON

3/23/2018: STIPULATION TO GRANT UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE; ORDER THEREON

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

11/30/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

193 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/03/2021
  • Hearing05/03/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department U at 6230 Sylmar Ave., Van Nuys, CA 91401; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/20/2021
  • Hearing04/20/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department U at 6230 Sylmar Ave., Van Nuys, CA 91401; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department U, Theresa M. Traber, Presiding; Jury Trial ((7 day est.)) - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department U, Theresa M. Traber, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2020
  • DocketStipulation and Order (Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Shortening Statutory Notice Period); Filed by Artin Shahnazarian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2020
  • DocketResponse (OF DEFENDANT RALPH THIBAULT TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION - SET TWO); Filed by George Ralph Thibault (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2020
  • DocketResponse (OF DEFENDANT GEORGE RALPH THIBAULT TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - SET TWO); Filed by George Ralph Thibault (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by George Ralph Thibault (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department U, Theresa M. Traber, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Production of Documents) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department U, Theresa M. Traber, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Intervenor's Supplemental Interrogatories) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
271 More Docket Entries
  • 12/18/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF RULING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2017
  • DocketSTIPULATION AND ORDER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2017
  • DocketStipulation; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Gagik Harutyunyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Gagik Harutyunyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Gagik Harutyunyan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC657305    Hearing Date: August 26, 2020    Dept: U

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHWEST DISTRICT

GAGIK HARUTYUNYAN, an individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALCO HOLDING CO., a Nevada corporation; ALCOINVEST, LLC, a limited liability company; NEW ERA INVESTMENTS, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) ) ) )

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: UNITED SPECIALTY’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Dept. U

8:30 a.m.

August 26, 2020

I. BACKGROUND

On April 11, 2017, Gagik Harutyunyan (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Alco Holding Co., Alcoinvest, LLC, New Era Investments, LLC, and Does 1 through 100, alleging claims for negligence and premises liability. On June 25, 2018, United Specialty Insurance Company (United Specialty) filed a cross-complaint in intervention against George Ralph Thibault (Thibault), Artin Shahnazarian (Shahnazarian), and Roes 1 through 10, alleging claims for: (1) implied indemnity; (2) comparative equitable indemnity; (3) equitable conversion; and (4) declaratory relief.  On February 8, 2019, Thibault and Shahnazarian were substituted in as Doe Defendants 1 and 2, respectively.

On May 8, 2020, Shahnazarian filed a cross-complaint against 420 College and Does 1 through 20, alleging claims for: (1) apportionment of fault; (2) declaratory relief; (3) indemnification; and (4) breach of contract. On June 29, 2020, 420 College filed a cross-complaint against Shahnazarian and Moes 1 through 20, alleging claims for: (1) apportionment of fault; (2) declaratory relief; (3) indemnification; and (4) breach of contract.

On June 11, 2020, United Specialty filed the pending motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to its Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, and Supplemental Request for Production, Set One, both without objections, and the imposition of sanctions in the amounts of $2,450 and $2,100 against Plaintiff and his counsel.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS & DISCUSSION

A. Supplemental Interrogatories

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, a party who fails to serve timely responses to interrogatories waives any objections to the requests, including those based on privilege and work product. The Court can relieve this waiver if: (1) the party subsequently serves a response that is in substantial compliance and (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a).) 

The party requesting information may move for an order compelling responses to the interrogatories when the party served with the requests fails to serve its timely response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(b).) The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c).) 

On August 28, 2019, United Specialty served by postal mail its Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff. Thirty days, plus five days for service by mail, made Plaintiff’s discovery deadline October 2, 2019. United Specialty’s counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel an email requesting a response to the interrogatories, without objection, within ten days. However, Plaintiff still has not served these discovery responses nor filed any opposition to this motion. Therefore, United Specialty’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to its Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, is well-taken.

United Specialty also requests $2,450 in sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel. United Specialty’s counsel, Warren Gilbert (Gilbert), declares that he spent two and one-half hours preparing this motion, points and authorities, and declaration. Gilbert expects to spend one and one-half hours reviewing and replying to Plaintiff’s opposition and an additional three hours traveling to and from and appearing for the hearing. Thus, Gilbert requests seven hours in attorneys’ fee at a rate of $350 per hour. As Plaintiff has not filed any opposition and Gilbert will likely appear telephonically for the hearing, thus obviating the necessity of travel, the Court finds three and one-half hours reasonable.  There is no evidence that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification in his failure to provide responses. Therefore, United Specialty’s request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $1,225 ($350/hour x 3.5 hours).

B. Request for Production  

Under California Civil Procedure section 2031.300, a party who fails to serve timely responses to requests for production waives any objections to the requests, including those based on privilege and work product. The Court can relieve this waiver if: (1) the party subsequently serves a response that is in substantial compliance and (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a).) 

The party requesting information may move for an order compelling responses to the requests for production when the party served with the requests fails to serve its timely response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(b).) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(c).) 

On August 28, 2019, United Specialty served via postal mail its Supplemental Request for Production, Set One, on Plaintiff.  Thirty days, plus five days for service by mail, made Plaintiff’s responses due October 2, 2019.  After not receiving any responses, United Specialty’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel on April 24, 2020 requesting production of the documents, without objection, within ten days. However, Plaintiff still has not served responses nor filed any opposition. Thus, United Specialty’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to its Supplemental Request for Production is well-taken.

United Specialty requests $2,100 in sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel. Gilbert declares that he spent two hours preparing this motion, its supporting points and authorities, and declaration. He expects to spend an additional one and one-half hours reviewing and replying to Plaintiff’s opposition and three hours traveling to and from and appearing for this hearing. Thus, Gilbert requests six and one-half hours at an hourly rate of $350. The Court notes that six and one-half hours at an hourly rate of $350 does not equal $2,100.  Moreover, as Plaintiff has not filed any opposition, Gilbert will likely be appearing for the hearing telephonically, obviating the need for travel, and Gilbert is already recovering for the one hour spent attending this hearing, the Court finds two hours at a rate of $350 per hour reasonable. Therefore, the Court orders $700 ($350/hour x 2 hours) in sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, United Specialty’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to its Supplemental Request for Production, Set One, and Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One, are GRANTED.

United Specialty’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED in the amounts of $700 and $1,225, for a total of $1,925 in sanctions, which must be paid by Plaintiff to United Specialty within 30 days of this ruling.

United Specialty is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling.

DATED: August 26, 2020

_____________________

Hon. Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHWEST DISTRICT

GAGIK HARUTYUNYAN, an individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALCO HOLDING CO., a Nevada corporation; ALCOINVEST, LLC, a limited liability company; NEW ERA INVESTMENTS, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) ) ) )

CASE NO: BC657305

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Dept. U

8:30 a.m.

August 26, 2020

I. BACKGROUND

On April 11, 2017, Gagik Harutyunyan (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Alco Holding Co., Alcoinvest, LLC, New Era Investments, LLC, and Does 1 through 100, alleging claims for negligence and premises liability. On June 25, 2018, United Specialty Insurance Company (United Specialty) filed a cross-complaint in intervention against George Ralph Thibault (Thibault), Artin Shahnazarian (Shahnazarian), and Roes 1 through 10, alleging claims for: (1) implied indemnity; (2) comparative equitable indemnity; (3) equitable conversion; and (4) declaratory relief. On February 8, 2019, Thibault and Shahnazarian were substituted in as Doe Defendants 1 and 2, respectively.

On May 8, 2020, Shahnazarian filed a cross-complaint against 420 College and Does 1 through 20, alleging claims for: (1) apportionment of fault; (2) declaratory relief; (3) indemnification; and (4) breach of contract. On June 29, 2020, 420 College filed a cross-complaint against Shahnazarian and Moes 1 through 20, alleging claims for: (1) apportionment of fault; (2) declaratory relief; (3) indemnification; and (4) breach of contract.

On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed this motion for discovery sanctions against Thibault for his failure to comply with the Court’s November 8, 2019 order compelling Thibault to serve responses to Plaintiff’s form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production, without objections, within ten days. Plaintiff also requests $2,965 in sanctions be ordered against Thibault.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS & DISCUSSION

A. Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests the Court take judicial notice of: (1) the Court’s November 8, 2019 minute order and (2) Thibault’s answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. Evidence Code section 452(d) provides that judicial notice can be taken of “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States.” Thus, as both documents are records of this Court, they are judicially-noticed.

B. Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff initially requested both discovery and monetary sanctions against Thibault for failure to respond to his discovery requests. However, because Thibault has now produced the requested responses since retaining a new attorney, Plaintiff requests only monetary sanctions.

The Court may impose monetary sanctions against a party who fails to obey an order compelling answers. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), & 2023.030.) Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 makes these sanctions mandatory unless the Court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

On May 6, 2019, Plaintiff served Thibault by postal mail with: (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One; (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One; (3) Requests for Production, Set One; and (4) Requests for Admissions, Set One. After not receiving responses to these discovery requests, Plaintiff moved for orders compelling Thibault’s responses and deeming the Requests for Admission admitted. The Court granted both motions against Thibault and ordered him to serve responses within ten days. As of filing this motion, Plaintiff had not received Thibault’s responses.

On December 23, 2019, Frank P. Morse (Morse) filed a declaration in opposition to this motion stating that he would be representing Thibault. (Morse declaration, ¶ 2.) Thibault’s previous attorney withdrew in April 2019 and Thibault had been representing himself in pro per since that time. (Id., ¶ 4.) Thibault was served at 3235 La Clede, Los Angeles, California where he had not lived since May 2019 when flooding forced him to relocate to a hotel in Burbank and then to an apartment. Thus, Thibault contends that the discovery requests were sent to the incorrect address and that Thibault was prepared to engage in the discovery process as he now had an attorney. (Id., ¶¶ 8-10.) Morse states he tried to reach out to Plaintiff’s attorney on number occasions via both telephone and email to explain the service issue and obviate the need for this motion but had received no response. (Id., ¶¶ 11-14.)

In reply to this opposition, Plaintiff asked the Court to reissue the order compelling Thibault’s responses within ten days.

On January 13, 2020, Thibault served responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions and Request for Production. Then, on January 15, 2020, Thibault served responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories. Thibault filed supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories on both March 24, 2020 and April 16, 2020.

The Court finds that Thibault’s failure to timely serve responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests was justified under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(a) due to Thibault’s lack of counsel for nearly six months in 2019 and service of the requests at an address where Thibault was no longer residing. Thibault’s failure to provide responses was substantially justified and he has now served responses as promised when he obtained substitute counsel in December 2019. Therefore, the Court finds sanctions against Thibualt and his counsel to be inappropriate.

C. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against Thibault is DENIED.

Thibault is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling.

DATED: August 26, 2020

_____________________

Hon. Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC657305    Hearing Date: January 10, 2020    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

GAGIK HARUTYUNYAN,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

ALCO HOLDING CO., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC657305

ORDER TRANSFERRING PERSONAL INJURY (PI) CASE TO INDEPENDENT CALENDAR (IC) COURT

DEPARTMENT 3 OF THE PERSONAL INJURY (PI) COURT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE ABOVE ENTITLED ACTION IS:

Complicated based upon either the number of pretrial hearings or the complexity of the issues presented.

AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1, THIS CASE IS HEREBY:

Transferred and reassigned to the Northwest District, Dept. A. All future proceedings will be before a judge selected by the Supervising Judge in that District. The parties who have appeared in the case will receive a Notice of Case Reassignment to an Independent Calendar (IC) court for all purposes from the Van Nuys courthouse.

Any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned IC court.

Dated this 10th day of January, 2020

Hon. Jon Takasugi

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC657305    Hearing Date: November 08, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

GAGIK HARUTYUNYAN,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

ALCO HOLDING CO., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC657305

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION TO DEEM RFAS ADMITTED

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

November 8, 2019

Plaintiff, Gagik Harutyunyan propounded special interrogatories, form interrogatories, RPDs and RFAs on Defendant, George Ralph Thibault on 5/06/19.  To date, Defendant has not served responses to any of the propounded discovery.  Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling Defendant to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery, deeming the RFAs admitted, and requiring Defendant to pay sanctions.

Plaintiff’s motions to compel are granted.  Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories and RPDs, without objections, within ten days.  CCP §§2030.290(a),(b), 2031.300(a),(b). 

Plaintiff’s motion to deem RFAs admitted is granted.  CCP §2033.280(b).

Sanctions are mandatory.  §§2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.280(c).  Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amounts of $2615 and $2440.  The Court reduces Counsel’s billing rate from $350/hour to $200/hour, which is more in line with typical billing rates in the personal injury courts.  The Court awards one hour of time to prepare each of these form discovery motions.  No opposition was filed and therefore no reply was necessary.  The Court awards the requested two hours to appear at the hearing on the motion, but only awards the time one.  The Court therefore awards a total of four hours of attorney time at the rate $200/hour, or $800 in attorneys’ fees.  The Court also awards two filing fees of $60 each, or $120 in costs. 

Sanctions are sought against and imposed against Defendant, in pro per; he is ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through his attorney of record, in the amount of $920, within twenty days.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.