This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/27/2019 at 05:14:54 (UTC).

KATAYOUN TAGHIZADEH FAZLI ET AL VS ACTION PROPERTY MANAGMENT

Case Summary

On 01/03/2018 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by KATAYOUN TAGHIZADEH FAZLI against ACTION PROPERTY MANAGMENT in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1566

  • Filing Date:

    01/03/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

PATRICK T. MADDEN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

KATHY T. FAZLI

KATAYOUN TAGHIZADEH FAZLI + AKA

Defendants

COMMONWEALTH SERVICE CORP(TRUSTEE GLENDOR

ACTION MANAGEMENT - A CA ENTITY UNK FORM

WILLIAM T BYRON - INDIV.

ACTION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT - CA ENTITY UN

JEREMY LAWS - INDIV.

DOES 1 - 50 INC.

INDIV. JEREMY LAWS

INDIV. WILLIAM T BYRON

 

Court Documents

Civil Case Cover Sheet

1/3/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

1/3/2018: Complaint

Legacy Document

2/5/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

3/2/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

3/15/2018: Legacy Document

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

5/31/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Opposition

7/12/2018: Opposition

Opposition

7/13/2018: Opposition

Proof of Service by Mail

7/13/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

11/7/2018: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Proof of Service by Mail

11/21/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Reply

2/13/2019: Reply

Minute Order

2/22/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

2/27/2019: Notice of Ruling

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

3/22/2019: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike

3/22/2019: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike

Case Management Statement

5/13/2019: Case Management Statement

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

5/24/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

36 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/11/2019
  • Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted; Filed by WILLIAM T BYRON - INDIV. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by robert Thomas Rettenmaier (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by WILLIAM T BYRON - INDIV. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by WILLIAM T BYRON - INDIV. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by ACTION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT - CA ENTITY UN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
50 More Docket Entries
  • 02/05/2018
  • Declaration; Filed by KATHY T. FAZLI (Legacy Party); Katayoun Taghizadeh Fazli (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2018
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2018
  • Declaration; Filed by KATHY T. FAZLI (Legacy Party); Katayoun Taghizadeh Fazli (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2018
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by KATHY T. FAZLI (Legacy Party); Katayoun Taghizadeh Fazli (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2018
  • Declaration; Filed by KATHY T. FAZLI (Legacy Party); Katayoun Taghizadeh Fazli (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2018
  • Declaration (Of Mailing-P.S. Action Property Management); Filed by Katayoun Taghizadeh Fazli (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2018
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by KATHY T. FAZLI (Legacy Party); Eric Burton Strongin (Attorney); Katayoun Taghizadeh Fazli (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Katayoun Taghizadeh Fazli (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: NC061566    Hearing Date: December 12, 2019    Dept: S27

INTRODUCTION

Defendant William Byron moves to compel Plaintiff Katayoun Taghizadeh to provide further responses to requests for admission (“RFAs”). He requests $2,460 in monetary sanctions against plaintiff and her attorneys, jointly and severally.

The caption of the motion is slightly inaccurate because Defendant also seeks to compel responses to form interrogatory #17.1 which asks for facts supporting denials of RFAs.

TIMELINESS

Ordinarily, a motion for further responses to RFAs must be brought within 45 days of service of the responses (CCP §2033.290(c)).

In the present case, this court ordered further responses on July 25, 2019. Plaintiff served unverified responses (“Second Supplemental Responses”) on August 7, 2019.

“Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

The court deems the motion timely.

No responses were served to form interrogatory 17.1 and there is no time limit to seeking initial responses.

DISCUSSION

At issue are RFAs 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 35.

Some of these are outright denials while others state that after a reasonable inquiry and based on available information she could not admit or deny the RFA.

The fact that there was no verification and no responses to form interrogatory 17.1 is sufficient in itself to grant this motion.

But Plaintiff wants more than verifications to the RFAs. Defendant argues available evidence should result in admissions. Defendant presents portions of this available evidence including documents and depositions.

The court cannot compel an admission, only responses. This is not an inquisition to extract the responses defendant wants. But he is not without a remedy. CCP §2033.420:

“(a) If a party fails to admit the genuineness of any document or the truth of any matter when requested to do so under this chapter, and if the party requesting that admission thereafter proves the genuineness of that document or the truth of that matter, the party requesting the admission may move the court for an order requiring the party to whom the request was directed to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in making that proof, including reasonable attorney’s fees.

(b) The court shall make this order unless it finds any of the following:

(1) An objection to the request was sustained or a response to it was waived under Section 2033.290.

(2) The admission sought was of no substantial importance.

(3) The party failing to make the admission had reasonable ground to believe that that party would prevail on the matter.

(4) There was other good reason for the failure to admit.”

If Defendant can prove the truth of his RFAs with the evidence at hand, he can recover the costs of such proof after trial.

The court orders Plaintiff to provide verified responses to RFAs within 10 days. Plaintiff may reconsider her denials and make admissions if she wishes to or she may stand on her responses once verified.

Verified responses to form interrogatory 17.1 are ordered within 10 days as to any response which is not an unqualified admission.

The request for monetary sanctions is granted. $2,460 in monetary sanctions are ordered against plaintiff and her attorneys, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days.