This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/28/2021 at 13:05:25 (UTC).

SEYED MAHMOUDI VS VALERIE GORDON ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/01/2018 SEYED MAHMOUDI filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against VALERIE GORDON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK, MARK A. BORENSTEIN, KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE and SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6854

  • Filing Date:

    03/01/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GEORGINA T. RIZK

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

MAHMOUDI SEYED

Respondents and Defendants

GORDON VALERIE

GORDON JOANIE

DOES 1 TO 50

Other

ALDER C. MICHAEL ESQ.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

PANAH D. HESS

YAZDANPANAH HESAM DEAN ESQ.

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

MARK R. WEINER & ASSOCIATES

MADIGAN MICHAEL VINCENT

MADIGAN MICHAEL VINCENT ESQ.

 

Court Documents

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

11/1/2021: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

11/2/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET FIVE AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONE

11/12/2021: Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET FIVE AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONE

Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES SET FIVE AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POIN

11/12/2021: Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES SET FIVE AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POIN

Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET SIX AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONET

11/12/2021: Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET SIX AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONET

Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES SET SIX AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINT

11/12/2021: Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES SET SIX AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

12/22/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

7/1/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Notice of Ruling

3/24/2021: Notice of Ruling

Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES SET 4 AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS

1/15/2021: Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES SET 4 AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES...)

3/2/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES...)

Notice of Ruling

3/2/2021: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (- HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEFEND...)

3/23/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (- HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEFEND...)

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

1/4/2021: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR SUPPLEMENTAL INSPECTION DEMAND AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF

11/24/2020: Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR SUPPLEMENTAL INSPECTION DEMAND AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF

Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTH

11/24/2020: Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTH

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

7/7/2020: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S EX-PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL...)

12/18/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S EX-PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL...)

20 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/12/2022
  • Hearing04/12/2022 at 1:30 PM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2022
  • Hearing04/12/2022 at 1:30 PM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2022
  • Hearing04/12/2022 at 1:30 PM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2022
  • Hearing04/12/2022 at 1:30 PM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2022
  • Hearing01/05/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2022
  • Hearing01/03/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Serena R. Murillo, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2021
  • DocketMotion for Order (NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET SIX AND FOR AN ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL V. MADIGAN); Filed by Valerie Gordon (Defendant); Joanie Gordon (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
45 More Docket Entries
  • 08/09/2018
  • DocketMotion to Compel; Filed by Valerie Gordon (Defendant); Joanie Gordon (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2018
  • DocketMotion to Compel; Filed by Valerie Gordon (Defendant); Joanie Gordon (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2018
  • DocketMotion to Compel; Filed by Valerie Gordon (Defendant); Joanie Gordon (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Valerie Gordon (Defendant); Joanie Gordon (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Valerie Gordon (Defendant); Joanie Gordon (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS VALERIE GORDON AND JOANIE GORDON; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2018
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Seyed Mahmoudi (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC696854    Hearing Date: March 23, 2021    Dept: 29

Seyed Mahmoudi v. Valerie Gordon, et al.

Motions For Order Compelling Responses to Supplemental Interrogatory and Supplemental Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents filed by Defendants Valerie Gordon and Joanie Gordon

TENTATIVE

Defendants Valerie Gordon and Joanie Gordon’s Motions for Orders Compelling Responses to Supplemental Interrogatory and Supplemental Demand for Inspection are GRANTED.

Defendants’ requests for sanctions are GRANTED.

Legal Standard

Compel Interrogatories

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. § 2030.290(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.)

Compel RPDs

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. § 2031.300(b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(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.

Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and 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(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.280(c).)

Under CCP section 2023.030(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 Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

Discussion

Defendants Valerie Gordon and Joanie Gordon (collectively “Defendants”) served Supplemental Interrogatory and Supplemental Inspection Demand on Plaintiff on May 21, 2020. (Motions, Madigan Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) On July 9, 2020, defense counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff with a reminder of Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve responses and providing additional time to provide responses up to and including July 20, 2020. (Id., ¶ 3., Ex. B.) To date, not responses have been received. (Id., ¶ 4.) 

As Defendants properly served discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to serve response, the Court finds Defendants are entitled to court orders directing Plaintiff to provide responses to the discovery requests served on Plaintiff. Therefore, the motions are granted.

Defendants request monetary sanctions in the amount of $506.25 for the motion to compel responses to supplemental interrogatory and $505.25 for the motion to compel responses to supplemental demand for inspection. The Court finds the requested amounts are unreasonable given the motions are relatively basic and unopposed. The Court thus awards monetary sanctions in a total amount of $422.50 (2 hours at $143.75/hour plus $15 CourtConnect fee and $120 motion filing fees).

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motions to compel responses to supplemental interrogatory and supplemental demand for inspection are GRANTED.

Plaintiff Seyed Mahmoudi is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Defendants Valerie Gordon and Joanie Gordon’s Supplemental Interrogatory (Set No. Three) and Supplemental Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents (Set No. Three) within 20 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff Seyed Mahmoudi and counsel of record Hess Panah, Esq. and the Law Offices of D. Hess Panah are ordered to pay Defendants Valerie Gordon and Joanie Gordon $422.50, jointly and severally, within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC696854    Hearing Date: March 02, 2021    Dept: 29

Sayed Mahmoudi v. Valerie Gordon, et al.

Defendants’ unopposed Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories Set 4 and for Order Imposing Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. The Court imposes monetary sanctions of $403.34 against Plaintiff and counsel of record jointly and severally.

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., § 2030.290, 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 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).)

Further, 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., § 2023.010.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a), states: “[t]he 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.”

Discussion

Defendants moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide responses, without objection, within 10 days to Supplemental Interrogatories Set 4 propounded on November 5, 2020. Defendants also seek monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorney of record in the amount of $478.34.

Here, Defendants served the subject discovery requests on Plaintiff on November 5, 2020. (Madigan Decl., ¶2, Exh. A.) On December 8, 2020, defense counsel sent an email reminding Plaintiff of the failure to timely respond to the interrogatories and gave additional time to provide answers, without objection, up to and including December 17, 2020. (Id. at ¶3, Exh. B.) On December 18, 2020, defense counsel sent another email, extending the deadline up to and including December 22, 2020. (Id., Exh. C.) As of the filing of the motion, no responses have been received. (Id. at ¶4.)

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Conclusion

The motion is granted. The Court imposes monetary sanctions of $403.34 (Two hours of attorney time at $160.17/hr, $60 filing fee, $23 Court Connect fee) against Plaintiff and counsel of record jointly and severally.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.  

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer YAZDANPANAH HESAM DEAN