This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/05/2019 at 01:39:59 (UTC).

MEGHEDI DARBINIANS ET AL VS DAMYAN SANCHEZ ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/16/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by MEGHEDI DARBINIANS against DAMYAN SANCHEZ 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:

    ****2353

  • Filing Date:

    04/16/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

DARBINIANS MEGHEDI

AHARONIAN RITA

Respondents and Defendants

SANCHEZ DAMYAN

DOES 1 TO 50

MEDRANO MARIA

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal

12/31/2018: Request for Dismissal

Request for Dismissal

1/3/2019: Request for Dismissal

Minute Order

12/5/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE

9/4/2018: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL

9/6/2018: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL

DEFENDANTS DAMYAN SANCHEZ AND MARIA MEDRANO'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

6/7/2018: DEFENDANTS DAMYAN SANCHEZ AND MARIA MEDRANO'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

5/2/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

5/2/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS

4/16/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

4/16/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/08/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2019
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by Meghedi Darbinians (Plaintiff); Rita Aharonian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2018
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by Meghedi Darbinians (Plaintiff); Rita Aharonian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal After Settlement)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2018
  • Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2018
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2018
  • Notice of Settlement; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2018
  • NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Damyan Sanchez (Defendant); Maria Medrano (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • DEFENDANTS DAMYAN SANCHEZ AND MARIA MEDRANO'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Meghedi Darbinians (Plaintiff); Rita Aharonian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Meghedi Darbinians (Plaintiff); Rita Aharonian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Meghedi Darbinians (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2018
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Meghedi Darbinians (Plaintiff); Rita Aharonian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC702353    Hearing Date: January 07, 2020    Dept: 4A

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One); Motion to Compel Statement of Damages

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On April 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint.  

On June 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed amendments to the complaint renaming Doe 1 as Defendant Ruben Marmet, Doe 2 as Defendant Bonnie Betts, Doe 3 as Defendant Alexia Eslava, and Doe 4 as Defendant Hyka Galadzhyan. 

On June 17, 2019, the Court dismissed Defendants Ruben Marmel, M.D., Bonnie Betts, R.N., Alexa Eslave, M.A., Leslie Fuente, and Velida P. San Juan from the complaint with prejudice. 

On July 23, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages and the cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. 

On October 30, 2019, Defendant Family Planning Associates Medical Group, Inc. (“Moving Defendant”) filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300.  Moving Defendant also moves to compel Plaintiff’s statement of damages pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.11. 

Trial is set for May 18, 2020. 

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Moving Defendant asks the Court to compel Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One). 

Moving Defendant also asks the Court to compel Plaintiff to serve a statement of damages on Defendant. 

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction.  (Code Civ. Proc., subd. (b).)  The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.  All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.  (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905–906.) 

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response.  (Code Civ. Proc., subd. (b).)  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., subd. (a).)  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded.  There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses.  Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. 

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”  Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code of Civ. Proc.,

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) 

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” 

A defendant may petition the Court to compel a plaintiff to serve a statement of damages on a defendant when a defendant requests a statement of damages from the plaintiff and no statement is served within 15 days.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.11, subd. (b).) 

DISCUSSION

On May 31, 2019, Moving Defendant served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) and a request for a statement of damages on Plaintiff by U.S. mail.  (Todd Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A-C.)  Moving Defendant granted four extensions, providing an ultimate deadline of October 4, 2019 for Plaintiff’s discovery responses to be served on Moving Defendant.  (Todd Decl., ¶¶

Plaintiff argues the motion is moot because Plaintiff served the outstanding discovery on December 13, 2019.  (Opposition, p. 3:20-3:25.)  Moving Defendant argues in reply that it has not received the outstanding discovery as of the signing of Kat Todd’s declaration on December 31, 2019.  (Todd Reply Decl., 

The Court finds the motion is properly granted. Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) and the request for a statement of damages were properly served on Plaintiff and Plaintiff failed to serve timely responses.  Plaintiff has not lodged the responses Plaintiff allegedly served on Moving Defendant.  Rather, Moving Defendant declares it has not received said responses eighteen days after they were allegedly served.  As such, the evidence shows no responses were served. 

There is no evidence showing Plaintiff acted with a substantial justification or other circumstances exist such that an imposition of sanctions would be unjust.  Thus, Moving Defendant is entitled to monetary sanctions.  However, Moving Defendant does not request such sanctions.  Accordingly, the Court does not award sanctions. 

Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED. 

Plaintiff is ordered serve verified responses without objections to Moving Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (Set One) within 20 days of this ruling. 

Plaintiff is also ordered to serve a statement of damages on Moving Defendant within 20 days of this ruling. 

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.