Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records defendant is represented by attorney Scott Spriggs of Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs who is being sanctioned by the court.

Case Number: BC646830 Hearing Date: May 03, 2018 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

Alejandro Ortego,

Plaintiff,

v.

Ashot Khlghatyan , et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC646830

Hearing Date: May 3, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiff’S motion to deem admitted

Plaintiff Alejandro Ortego (“Plaintiff”) has filed a motion to deem admitted Requests for Admissions (“RFA”), set one, served on defendant Karen Mkhitaryan (“Defendant”).

On January 29, 2018, Plaintiff served the discovery requests on Defendant. Defendant’s discovery responses were due on March 5, 2018. As of the filing of the motions on March 19, 2018, Plaintiff has not received responses from Defendant. Defendant has not filed any opposition to Plaintiff’s motion.

Plaintiff moves under CCP §2033.280 to deem the RFA admitted. Where there has been no timely response to a request for admission under CCP § 2033.010, 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, as well as for a monetary sanction. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants that party 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 of 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 of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Defendant has not filed any opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to deem the RFA admitted. Nor has Defendant otherwise demonstrated that Defendant has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the RFA. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for an order deeming the RFA admitted is granted pursuant to CCP §2033.280. Defendant is deemed to have admitted the truth of all matters specified in the RFA as of this date.

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant. The Court finds Defendant’s failure to respond a misuse of the discovery process. Sanctions have been sufficiently noticed against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel. The Court grants sanctions for 2 hours to prepare the motion and appear at the hearing, at $350.00 per hour, plus one $60 filing fees, for a total of $760.00. Defendant and Defendant’s counsel are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $760.00 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

All parties should note that the hearing on this motion and all future court dates will take place at the Court’s new location: Spring Street Courthouse, 312 N. Spring Street, Department 5, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this order, including the Court’s new location and new department number, and file proof of service of such.

DATED: May 3, 2018 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court