Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records plaintiff is represented by attorney Victor Shagramanov who is being sanctioned by the court.

Case Number: BC663460 Hearing Date: May 03, 2018 Dept: 4

MOVING PARTY: Defendant LA County MTA

RESPONDING PARTY: None

(1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two

(2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

(3) Motion for an Order That the Truth of All Matters Specified in Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, Be Deemed Admitted

The court considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

On May 31, 2017, plaintiff Genoveva Galvez filed a complaint against defendant LA County MTA for motor vehicle negligence based on an incident that occurred on January 17, 2017.

On November 15, 2017, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.

Trial is set for November 30, 2018.

LEGAL STANDARD

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. CCP § 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.

Request for Admissions

Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(b), a 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, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). “Failure to timely respond to RFA does not result in automatic admissions. Rather, the propounder of the RFA must ‘move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction’ under § 2023.010 et seq.” Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, ¶ 8:1370, citing CCP § 2033.280(b). The court “shall” grant the motion to deem RFA admitted, “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.” CCP § 2033.280(c).

DISCUSSION

Defendant LA County MTA requests that the court compel plaintiff to serve responses to defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two and Special Interrogatories, Set One and to deem the matters admitted in defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One. Defendant served its

discovery requests on January 22, 2018. Plaintiff’s responses were due by February 25, 2018. On March 5, 2018, defense counsel sent a letter to plaintiff’s counsel requesting responses by March 16, 2018. To date, defense counsel has not received responses.

Because defendant properly served its discovery requests and plaintiff failed to serve responses, the motions are GRANTED.

Under CCP § 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.” Under CCP § 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

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.” CCP §§ 2030.290(c); 2031.300(c).

It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated a motion to deem them admitted. CCP § 2033.280(c).

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(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.”

Defendant requests sanctions against plaintiff and her attorney of record, Vladimir Shagramanov, Esq., in the amount of $720 for each motion. The court finds that $540 ($180/hr. x 2 hrs. plus $180 in filing fees) is a reasonable amount to be imposed against plaintiff and her attorney of record for all three motions.

The court ORDERS:

Plaintiff Genoveva Galvez is ordered to serve on defendant verified responses without objections to defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two and Special Interrogatories, Set One, within 20 days.

The court deems admitted the matters in defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One.

The court orders that plaintiff and her attorney of record, Vladimir Shagramanov, Esq., are to pay to defendant a monetary sanction in the amount of $540 within 30 days.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 3, 2018

_____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court

Lawzilla Additional Information:
This has post has been locked and claimed by Lawzilla due to a fraud attempted by attorney Vladimir Shagramanov. It may no longer be claimed per the “Own the Page” policy.