Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/21/2019 at 00:04:22 (UTC).

SOHRAB MOHAMMED PAYIND VS HAKKASAN LIMITED

Case Summary

On 09/25/2017 SOHRAB MOHAMMED PAYIND filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against HAKKASAN LIMITED. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7170

  • Filing Date:

    09/25/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

PAYIND SOHRAB MOHAMMED

Defendants and Respondents

HAKKASAN LIMITED

DOES 1 TO 50

BOOTSY BELLOWS NIGHTCLUB

HAKKASAN SF LLC.

TOLL BRIAN

TERZIAN JOHN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

KARIMAN LAW GROUP

KARIMIAN SHAHIN SHAWN

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

3/11/2019: Minute Order

Proof of Personal Service

3/25/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

4/30/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

4/30/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

4/30/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Declaration

5/8/2019: Declaration

Minute Order

5/13/2019: Minute Order

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

5/23/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Proof of Personal Service

5/29/2019: Proof of Personal Service

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/29/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by SOHRAB MOHAMMED PAYIND (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by SOHRAB MOHAMMED PAYIND (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and Failure to File Default Judgment Pursuant to CRC 3.740 - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service and ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • DECLARATION OF SHAHIN SHAWN KARIMIAN IN RESPONSE TO OSC RE FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE AND FAILURE TO FILE DEFAULT JUDGMENT; Filed by SOHRAB MOHAMMED PAYIND (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by SOHRAB MOHAMMED PAYIND (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by SOHRAB MOHAMMED PAYIND (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by SOHRAB MOHAMMED PAYIND (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by SOHRAB MOHAMMED PAYIND (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by SOHRAB MOHAMMED PAYIND (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC677170    Hearing Date: July 29, 2020    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

SOHRAB MOHAMMED PAYIND,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HAKKASAN LIMITED, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.: BC677170

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY, DEEM ADMITTED AND MONETARY SANCTIONS

Dept. 27

8:30 a.m.

July 29, 2020

On September 25, 2017, Plaintiff Sohrab Mohammed Payind (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Hakkasan Limited relating to an incident at a nightclub. November  15, 2019, Plaintiff served Set One of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Request for Admissions on Defendant.  Defendant claims responses were served on July 14, 2020.  Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s responses to discovery requests, for an order deeming admitted requests for admissions, and monetary sanctions.

Compel Responses

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)   A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

Defendant states it served responses to Plaintiff’s discovery on July 14, 2020.  However, the responses are not attached as exhibits and the Court cannot review if they are verified and without objections.  

Plaintiff improperly filed one motion for all three sets of discovery instead of three motionsAccordingly, the Motions to compel are GRANTED on the condition that Plaintiff pays 2 additional filing fees within 5 days of the date of this Order, and Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Deem Admitted

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 states it served responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission.  But the responses are not attached and the Court cannot assess whether Defendant served substantially compliant responses prior to the hearing on this Motion.  Also, this Motion should have been brought as a separate Motion.  Accordingly, the Motion to deem admitted requests for admissions is GRANTED on the condition that Plaintiff pays a filing fee within 5 days of the date of this Order.  

Monetary Sanctions

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).)  

Defendant argues sanctions should not be imposed because the parties had agreed to engage in settlement talks while discovery was outstanding and because substantive responses have already been served.  Plaintiff does not rebut this assertion.  Accordingly, the Court finds that sanctions would be unjust.  

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 and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $200, 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 SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this 29th day of July 2020

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court