This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/08/2019 at 02:38:55 (UTC).

JOSE JUAREZ VS SINA RASEKHFARD ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/16/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by JOSE JUAREZ against SINA RASEKHFARD in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2598

  • Filing Date:

    04/16/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

JUAREZ JOSE

Respondents and Defendants

ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY

DOES 1 TO 30

RASEKHFARD SINA

ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY OF LOS ANGELES LLC

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/18/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/19/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

8/3/2018: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS'

8/3/2018: ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS'

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

11/16/2018: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Proof of Personal Service

12/10/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Notice

2/19/2019: Notice

Disassociation of Attorney

2/22/2019: Disassociation of Attorney

Proof of Personal Service

4/16/2019: Proof of Personal Service

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/16/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Jose Juarez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • Disassociation of Attorney; Filed by Sina Rasekhfard (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2019
  • Notice (Notice of Association of Attorneys); Filed by Sina Rasekhfard (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • Proof of Personal Service (Of Summons); Filed by Jose Juarez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2018
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) (Naming Doe 1); Filed by Jose Juarez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2018
  • Request to Waive Court Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2018
  • ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS'

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2018
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2018
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Sina Rasekhfard (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2018
  • Request-Waive Court Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2018
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Sina Rasekhfard (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jose Juarez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jose Juarez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Jose Juarez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Jose Juarez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC702598    Hearing Date: December 06, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM RFAS ADMITTED AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

On April 16, 2018, Plaintiff Jose Juarez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Sina Rasekhfard (“Defendant”) and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company for motor vehicle relating to a April 27, 2016 vehicle accident. On August 7, 2019, Plaintiff propounded Requests for Admission – Set One. Defendant did not respond. Plaintiff discovered another address for Defendant listed on Defendant’s filed answer and served discovery there. Defendant did not respond. Plaintiff moves for an order deeming admitted requests for admissions and monetary sanctions.

Where a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).) The court shall grant a motion to deem admitted 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Defendant filed no opposition to this Motion but Enterprise did. Enterprise argues that Defendant has not received mail for months at the two addresses where Plaintiff served the requests for admission.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, subdivision (a) stats that service by mail may be made by mailing the document to person being served to “the office address as last given by that person on any document filed in this cause and served on the party making service by mail.” On August 3, 3108, Defendant filed an answer listing 1545 Wilshire, Apt. 301 as his address. The answer contains an incomplete proof of service. On February 19, 2019, Enterprise’s attorneys filed a Notice of Association of Attorneys stating that “In Pro Per Defendant Sina Rasekhfard hereby associates” Enterprise’s counsel “as counsel of record for Defendant Sina Rasekhfard. On February 22, 2019, they filed a Notice of Disassociation of Attorney stating the firm “hereby disassociates as counsel of record for Defendant Sina Fasekhfard.” Defendant has filed no more recent documents.

The Court is not aware of any authority allowing a law firm to “associate” with a self-represented party. Association of counsel occurs when a client already has counsel. However, if Enterprise’s attorneys become Defendant’s attorneys at some point before the February 19, 2019 the Notice of Association of Attorneys, then the February 22, 2019 Notice of Disassociation of Attorney was ineffective to terminate the relationship. An attorney can only withdraw from representation in an active case either “[u]pon the consent of both client and attorney, filed with the clerk or entered upon the minutes,” or “[u]pon the order of the court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 284.) The attorney cannot merely file a document asserting that the attorney no longer represents the client. Therefore, if Enterprise’s attorneys represented Defendant as of February 19, 2019, then they still represent Defendant because they have not withdrawn according to the procedure in section 284.

If Enterprise’s attorneys never represented Defendant, then the most recent filing by Defendant is the answer listing the 1545 Wilshire, Apt. 301 address.

In either scenario, Plaintiff effected service of the request for admissions on August 28, 2019 when Plaintiff mailed the request for admissions to the 1545 Wilshire, Apt. 301 address and to Enterprise’s attorneys. No authority required Plaintiff to determine if Defendant still lived or received mail at the address on his answer. Rather, it was Defendant’s responsibility to file and serve a change of address form if he had changed addresses. (Cal. Rule of Court, rule 2.200 [“An attorney or self-represented party whose mailing address . . . changes while an action is pending must serve on all parties and file a written notice of the change”].)

Accordingly, the Motion to deem admitted requests for admissions is GRANTED.

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Defendant in the reduced amount of $560 for two hours at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate of $250 and $60.00 in filing fees, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.