Preview
Saul Reiss, SBN 48528 ELECTRONICALLY FILED
1
reisslaw@reisslaw.net Superior Court of California
2 Fay Pugh, SBN 198708 County of Santa Barbara
fay.pugh@outlook.com Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
3 Law Offices of Saul Reiss, P.C. 4/12/2023 12:28 PM
By: Blanca Delabra , Deputy
11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 415E
4
Los Angeles, Ca 90064
5 Tel.: 310-450-2888 Fax.: 310-450-2885
Attorney for Defendants ARA BALJIAN and BMI GROUP, INC.
6 and Defendant/Cross-Complainant LE PHUQUE, LLC and
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA – COOK BRANCH
10
GARY E. HAUENSTEIN, an individual, ) Case No.: 20CV03544
11 )
GWEN J. HAUENSTEIN, an individual, [Assigned to the Honorable James F. Rigali –
)
12 ) Dept. SM 2]
Plaintiffs, )
13 ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY
vs. ) DEFENDANT ARA BALJIAN TO
14 )
) COMPEL PLAINTIFF GWEN J.
15 ARA BALJIAN, an individual; LE ) HAUENSTEIN TO WITHDRAW HER
PHUQUE, LLC, a California Limited ) UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A
16 Liability Company; BMI GROUP, INC., a ) VERIFICATION FOR HER RESPONSES
California Corporation; DAVID ) AND PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES
17 )
AGAZARYAN, an individual; MEHRAN ) TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF
18 aka “MIKE” AGAZARYAN, an ) DOCUMENTS, SET ONE AND FOR
individual; ARMAN KARKOTSYAN, an ) IMPOSITION OF MONETARY
19 )
individual; and Does 4-50, inclusive, SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF
) $3,085 AGAINST PLAINTIFF GWEN J.
20 )
Defendants. ) HAUENSTEIN AND HER ATTORNEY
21 LE PHUQUE, LLC, a California Limited ) OF RECORD MAJID SAFAIE AND
Liability Company, ) BRIAN STUART OF ARYA LAW
22 ) CENTER, P.C., JOINTLY AND
) SEVERALLY; MEMORANDUM OF
23 Cross-Complainant, )
) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
24 Vs. )
) [Concurrently filed with Declaration of Fay
25 )
GARY E. HAUENSTEIN, an individual, ) Pugh and Separate Statement]
26 GWEN J. HAUENSTEIN, an individual, )
and ROES 1 to 50, inclusive, ) Date: June 6, 2023
27 ) Time: 8:30 a.m.
) Place: Dept. SM2
28 Cross-Defendants. )
1
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW
UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP
) Complaint Filed: October 27, 2020
1 ) Trial Date: None
2
3
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
4
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on the 6th day of June, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon
5
thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department SM 2 of the above-entitled Court located
6
at 312-C East Cook Street, Bldg. E., Santa Maria, California 93454, Defendant Ara Baljian
7
(“Defendant”) will and hereby does move for an Order Compelling Plaintiff Gwen J.
8
Hauenstein (“Plaintiff”) to (1) Withdraw her Objections to the Entire First Set of Demand for
9
Production of Documents, (2) Provide a Verification for her Responses, (3) Provide Further
10
Responses to Demand Numbers 1-26, 28-32, 34 and 35 for Imposition of Monetary Sanctions
11
in the amount of $3,085 against Plaintiff and her attorney of record, Brian Stuart and Majid
12
Safaie of Arya Law Center, PC, jointly and severally.
13
The Motion is made on the ground that Plaintiff was served with the subject discovery
14
on May 31, 2022. The responses were untimely served in August of 2022, accordingly,
15
objections were waived. Her responses are not verified. Plaintiff has provided defective
16
responses to the above-listed demands.
17
Despite repeatedly promising to respond, Defendant’s numerous meet and confer efforts
18
and extensions granted from September of 2022 to March 2023, Plaintiff has yet to withdraw
19
her untimely objections, provide further responses and a verification and produce responsive
20
documents.
21
This Motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2023.010, et seq.
22
and 2031.010, et seq. and is based upon this Notice, the Memorandum of Points and
23
Authorities filed herewith, the concurrently filed Declaration of Fay Pugh, the complete files
24
and records in this action, and all other matters and evidence that may be presented at the
25
hearing on this Motion.
26
///
27
///
28
2
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW
UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP
Dated: April 11, 2023 LAW OFFICES OF SAUL REISS, P.C.
1
2
3 ________________________________
Saul Reiss, Esq.
4 Fay Pugh, Esq.
5 Attorneys for Defendants ARA BALJIAN
and BMI GROUP, INC. and Defendant/Cross-
6 Complainant LE PHUQUE, LLC
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW
UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS / PROCEDURAL HISTORY.
3 A. THE COMPLAINTS.
4 Plaintiff Gary and Gwen Hauenstein (“Hauensteins”) claim to be the owners of three
5 parcels of land, commonly known as 3333 Avena Road, Lompoc, California (collectively, the
6 “Property”). According to Hauensteins, Defendants claim to own the Property. Defendants
7 allegedly entered into oral and written agreements, which they breached and have committed
8 fraud.
9 On October 27, 2020, Hauensteins filed their Complaint against Defendants Ara
10 Baljian, Le Phuque LLC and Nationstar Mortgage Company alleging breach of oral contract,
11 fraud, fraud in the inducement, fraud in the concealment, quiet title and declaratory relief.
12 Hauensteins voluntarily dismissed Defendant Nationstar Mortgage Company.
13 Defendants Ara Baljian and Le Phuque’s demurrer to the Complaint was sustained
14 with leave to amend as to all causes of action.
15 On September 17, 2021, Hauensteins filed their First Amended Complaint alleging
16 the same causes of action and added BMI as a defendant.
17 On February 4, 2022, Defendants’ demurrers were sustained as to all causes of action
18 of the First Amended Complaint, with leave to amend.
19 Hauensteins filed their Second Amended Complaint alleging the same claims and
20 added three new defendants.
21 On October 4, 2022, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the second, third
22 and fourth causes of action for fraud, fraud in inducement and fraud in concealment, fifth and
23 sixth causes of action for quiet title and declaratory relief and granted the motion to strike as
24 to the alter ego allegations, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees request.
25 On or about October 31, 2022, Hauensteins filed their Third Amended Complaint
26 alleging breach of contract and fraud.
27 On December 8, 2022, Defendants filed their answer to the Third Amended
28 Complaint.
4
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW
UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP
1 B. THE CROSS-COMPLAINT.
2 On December 8, 2022, Cross-Complainant Le Phuque filed its Cross-Complaint for
3 trespass, ejectment and writ of possession against Hauensteins based on the following facts:
4 Hauensteins borrowed $168,500 from Le Phuque memorialized in a Note secured by a deed
5 of trust secured by the Property. The Note provided that
6
“Should the trustor or his successors in interest, without the consent in writing
7 of the beneficiary, sell, transfer or convey or permit to be sold, transferred or
conveyed, his interest in the property, or any part thereof, then the beneficiary
8 may, at his option, declare all sums secured hereby immediately due and
payable.”
9
Without notice, knowledge or consent of Le Phuque, on May 31, 2019, Hauenstein
10
executed a Grant Deed transferring the Property to The Monterrosa Firm, Inc. On November
11
27, 2019, The Monterrosa Firm, Inc. executed a Grant Deed transferring the Property to
12
Golden Phoenix, LLC.
13
Shortly thereafter, Le Phuque discovered that Hauenstein had transferred the Property
14
and demanded repayment of the loan. Hauenstein claimed that they did not owe any money
15
and refused to repay the loan.
16
In December of 2019, Le Phuque declared the entire amount under the Note due and
17
owing and caused to be recorded a Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust.
18
On or about April 30, 2020, the Notice of Trustee’s Sale provided that the sale of the Property
19
would take place on June 3, 2020. On November 11, 2020, the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale
20
was recorded by which Le Phuque became the owner of the Property.
21
Since November 11, 2020, Hauenstein have continued to occupy the Property and
22
have failed and refused to vacate the same or pay rent to Le Phuque.
23
II. THE DISCOVERY AT ISSUE IN THIS MOTION AND MEET AND CONFER
24
EFFORTS.
25
On May 31, 2022, Defendants served Form Interrogatories (“FI”), Special
26
Interrogatories (“SI”), and Demand for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), Sets One on
27
Plaintiffs. (Declaration of Fay Pugh (“Pugh Decl.,”), Exhibits 1 through 7).
28
5
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW
UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP
1 On August 24, 2022, after numerous requests by Defendants’ counsel, Hauenstein
2 served objections and defective responses to FIs, SIs, and RFPs. (Pugh Decl., Exhibits 7
3 through 12).
4 Hauenstein produced 5,033 pages of documents to Defendant Ara Baljian’s RFPs, Sets
5 One, but have failed to indicate which document is responsive to which demand in the RFPs
6 as required by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.280(a).
7 From September 3, 2022 to February 20, 2023, Defendants’ counsel met and conferred
8 with Plaintiff’s counsel during which time Plaintiff’s counsel requested additional time to
9 respond and requested extension after extensions, which were granted. The final extension
10 granted for Plaintiff to provide supplemental responses was March 15, 2023 with Defendants’
11 deadline to file motions to compel is April 14, 2023. (Pugh Decl., Exhibits 14 and 17).
12 The details of the meet and confer are set forth in the Declaration of Fay Pugh and are
13 not repeated here in order to avoid duplication and waste of the Court’s time.
14 After requesting and being granted numerous additional extensions, no responses or
15 additional documents have been provided by Hauenstein.
16 III. DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED.
17 Where a response has been made, but the demanding party is not satisfied with it, the
18 remedy is a motion to compel further responses. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310. This motion
19 can be utilized to attack a response containing objections, or an agreement to comply that is
20 incomplete or a statement of inability to comply that is incomplete or evasive. Code of Civ.
21 Proc. §2031.310(a).
22 If the responding party fails to permit inspection in accordance with its agreement to
23 comply with an inspection demand, the demanding party’s remedy is to file a motion
24 compelling compliance. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.320.
25 A. HAVING FAILED TO TIMELY RESPOND TO DISCOVERY,
26 PLAINTIFF HAS WAIVED HER RIGHT TO ASSERT OBJECTIONS.
27 The subject discovery were served on May 31, 2022. (Pugh Decl., Exhibit 3). The
28 responses were served after numerous requests on August 24, 2022 and included objections.
6
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW
UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP
1 (Pugh Decl., Exhibit 10). No extension for the responses was granted. Accordingly, having
2 served untimely responses, Plaintiff has waived the right to object.
3 The response is due thirty days after service of the demand extended where served by
4 mail, overnight delivery or fax or electronically. See Code of Civ. Proc. §§1010.6(a)(4), 1013.
5 Code of Civ. Proc. §§2031.260, 2016.050. Failing to respond to a Code of Civ. Proc.
6 §2031.010 demand within the time permitted waives all objections to the demand, including
7 claims of privilege and work product. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.300(a).
8 B. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES ARE NOT VERIFIED.
9 Plaintiff’s responses are not verified. (Pugh Decl., Exhibit 10). The response must be
10 signed “under oath” by the party to whom it is directed. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.250.
11 C. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEMAND NUMBERS 1-26, 28-43, 34
12 AND 35 ARE DEFECTIVE.
13 i. Demand Number 9:
14 Plaintiff has objected to this demand. As set forth, having failed to timely respond,
15 she has waived the right to object. Failing to respond to a Code of Civ. Proc.
16 §2031.010 demand within the time permitted waives all objections to the demand, including
17 claims of privilege and work product. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.300(a).
18 ii. Demand Numbers 1-8, 10-20, 22-26, 29-31, 35:
19 In response to these demands, Plaintiff states “This Responding Party will comply
20 with this request and has attached such responsive documents that in their possession, custody
21 or control.”
22 Plaintiffs have produced 5,033 pages of documents. However, they have failed to
23 indicate which document is responsive to which demand. Accordingly, the responses fail to
24 comply with Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.280, which provides that documents must be sorted
25 and labeled to correspond with the categories in the document demand. It is impossible to
26 determine which document is responsive to which request.
27 ///
28 ///
7
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW
UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP
1 iii. Demand Numbers 21, 28, 32, 34:
2 In response to these demands, Plaintiff states “This Responding party will comply
3 with this request at such time as such responsive documents become available to this
4 responding party and will supplement their responses to reflect the same when obtained.”
5 This action was instituted in October of 2020, more than 2½ years ago. Plaintiff must
6 have had documents in support of her own allegations before filing the action and has had
7 ample time since the filing of the action and the service of the discovery months ago to locate
8 and produce the documents. In fact, she has had since August of 2022 to now to find
9 documents and produce the same.
10 It is unclear why the documents are not available and how they will become available
11 at a later time. When will the documents become available? The term “when obtained” is
12 unacceptable. If Plaintiff does not currently have responsive documents, then the proper
13 response is an inability to comply. If Plaintiff is unable to comply, then her response shall
14 state that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to locate the item
15 demanded and the reason she is unable to comply, e.g., the document never existed, has been
16 lost, stolen, destroyed, or is not in the possession, custody or control of the responding party,
17 in which case, the response must state the name and address of anyone believed to have the
18 document. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.230. If Plaintiff later discovers responsive documents,
19 she can always amend her responses and produce the responsive documents.
20 D. THERE IS “GOOD CAUSE” FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE
21 DOCUMENTS.
22 The motion for order compelling further responses “shall set forth specific facts
23 showing good causing showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection
24 demand.” Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(b)(1); Kirkland v. Sup. Ct. (Guess.?, Inc.) (2002) 95
25 Cal.App.4th 92, 98. If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden is then on the
26 responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. Kirkland, supra, 95
27 Cal.App.4th at 98.
28
8
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW
UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP
1 Each of the subject demands seek documents concerning a specific allegation in
2 Plaintiff’s complaint, accordingly, the documents are directly relevant to this action and good
3 cause for their production exists. (Pugh Decl., Exhibit 3).
4 Courts have construed the discovery statutes broadly, so as to uphold the right to
5 discovery. Williams v. Sup.Ct. (Marshalls of CA, LLC) (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; Emerson
6 Elec. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Grayson) (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1108; see Obregon v. Sup.Ct. (Cimm’s,
7 Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 434 (citing text).
8 Clearly, documents regarding Plaintiff’s allegation are relevant. The first and most
9 basic limitation on the scope of discovery is that the information sought must be relevant to
10 the “subject matter” of the pending action or to the determination of a motion in that action.
11 Code of Civ. Proc. §2017.010.
12 Obtaining documents regarding Plaintiff’s claims will assist Defendant in this action.
13 For discovery purposes, information should be regarded as “relevant” to the subject matter if
14 it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or
15 facilitating settlement. Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct. (City of San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th
16 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (Lawyers’ Mutual Ins. Co.) (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th
17 1599, 611 (citing text); Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006,
18 1013 (citing text).
19 Plaintiff should be ordered to provide further responses in the proper format as
20 required by Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.210 et. seq. because each of said documents is relevant
21 to the subject matter of this action and is not privileged or otherwise exempt from discovery,
22 and because good cause exists for the production in that it is necessary to inspect the same in
23 order to prepare this case for trial. Defendant submits that since the documents requested in
24 the Demand are basic and foundational, which are essential for the prosecution of the case,
25 Plaintiff’s failure to respond and produce responsive documents, is without justification.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
9
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW
UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP
1 E. SANCTIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED.
2 Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(h) provides
3
“Except as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary
4 sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any
party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to
5 compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the
sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make
6
the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
7 Code of Civ. Proc. §2023.010 provides
8
“Misuse of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following:
9 … (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. …
10 (e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to
discovery. (f) Making an evasive response to discovery. … (h) Making or
11 opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to
compel or to limit discovery. (i) Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or
12 by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith
13 attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery.”
If the party properly asks for monetary sanctions, the court “shall” impose a monetary
14
sanction against whichever party loses on the motion to compel compliance unless it finds
15
that party made or opposed the motion “with substantial justification” or other circumstances
16
make the sanction “unjust.” Code of Civ. Proc. §§2031.320(b) and 2023.030(a).
17
From September 3, 2022 to February 20, 2023, Defendant’s counsel met and conferred
18
with Plaintiff’s counsel during which time Plaintiff’s counsel requested additional time to
19
respond and requested extension after extensions, which were granted. The final extension
20
granted for Plaintiff to provide responses was March 15, 2023 with Defendants’ deadline to
21
file motions to compel is April 14, 2023. (Pugh Decl., Exhibits 14 and 17).
22
After requesting and being granted numerous additional extensions, no further
23
responses or additional responsive documents has been provided by Plaintiff. Her failure to
24
respond after numerous meet and confer attempts and extensions granted justifies the
25
imposition of sanctions. By virtue of having to bring the instant motion, Defendant has
26
incurred costs in the amount of $60 and attorneys’ fees in the amount of $3,025 as fully
27
explained in the concurrently filed Declaration of Fay Pugh.
28
10
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW
UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP
1 IV. CONCLUSION.
2 Based on the foregoing, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court order Plaintiff
3 to Withdraw her Objections to the entire set of Demand for Production of Documents, provide
4 her verification to the responses, produce responsive documents and provide further responses
5 to Demand Numbers 1-26, 28-43, 34 and 35 and Impose Monetary Sanctions in the amount
6 of $3,085 against Plaintiff and her attorney of record, jointly and severally.
7
Dated: April 11, 2023 LAW OFFICES OF SAUL REISS, P.C.
8
9
10 ________________________________
Saul Reiss, Esq.
11 Fay Pugh, Esq.
12 Attorneys for Defendants ARA BALJIAN
and BMI GROUP, INC. and Defendant/Cross-
13 Complainant LE PHUQUE, LLC
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW
UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3 I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and
not a party to the within action; my business address is 11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 415E,
4
Los Angeles, CA 90064; my email is fay.pugh@outlook.com
5
On April 12, 2023, I caused the foregoing document described as
6
7 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY DEFENDANT ARA BALJIAN TO
COMPEL PLAINTIFF GWEN J. HAUENSTEIN TO WITHDRAW HER UNTIMELY
8 OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION FOR HER RESPONSES AND
PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF
9 DOCUMENTS, SET ONE AND FOR IMPOSITION OF MONETARY SANCTIONS
10 IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,085 AGAINST PLAINTIFF GWEN J. HAUENSTEIN AND
HER ATTORNEY OF RECORD MAJID SAFAIE AND BRIAN STUART OF ARYA
11 LAW CENTER, P.C., JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES
12
13 to be served on the interested parties in this action addressed as follows:
14 Majid Safaie, Esq.
majid.safaie@aryalc.com
15 Brian Stuart, Esq.
16 brian.stuart@aryalc.com
Arya Law Center, PC
17 3187 Red Hill Ave., Suite 115 Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tel: 877-279-2523
18
Fax: 877-235-1558
19
/ X / (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) I caused the above-referenced document to be served
20 through One Legal addressed to all parties listed herein. The service transmission was
reported as complete and a copy of the One Legal Receipt Filing Page/Confirmation will be
21
maintained with the original document in my office.
22
/ X / (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
23 the above is true and correct.
24
Executed on April 12, 2023, at Los Angeles, California.
25
26
27 __________________
28 Fay Pugh
12
NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW
UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP
Preview
Saul Reiss, SBN 48528 ELECTRONICALLY FILED 1 reisslaw@reisslaw.net Superior Court of California 2 Fay Pugh, SBN 198708 County of Santa Barbara fay.pugh@outlook.com Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer 3 Law Offices of Saul Reiss, P.C. 4/12/2023 12:28 PM By: Blanca Delabra , Deputy 11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 415E 4 Los Angeles, Ca 90064 5 Tel.: 310-450-2888 Fax.: 310-450-2885 Attorney for Defendants ARA BALJIAN and BMI GROUP, INC. 6 and Defendant/Cross-Complainant LE PHUQUE, LLC and 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA – COOK BRANCH 10 GARY E. HAUENSTEIN, an individual, ) Case No.: 20CV03544 11 ) GWEN J. HAUENSTEIN, an individual, [Assigned to the Honorable James F. Rigali – ) 12 ) Dept. SM 2] Plaintiffs, ) 13 ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY vs. ) DEFENDANT ARA BALJIAN TO 14 ) ) COMPEL PLAINTIFF GWEN J. 15 ARA BALJIAN, an individual; LE ) HAUENSTEIN TO WITHDRAW HER PHUQUE, LLC, a California Limited ) UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A 16 Liability Company; BMI GROUP, INC., a ) VERIFICATION FOR HER RESPONSES California Corporation; DAVID ) AND PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES 17 ) AGAZARYAN, an individual; MEHRAN ) TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF 18 aka “MIKE” AGAZARYAN, an ) DOCUMENTS, SET ONE AND FOR individual; ARMAN KARKOTSYAN, an ) IMPOSITION OF MONETARY 19 ) individual; and Does 4-50, inclusive, SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF ) $3,085 AGAINST PLAINTIFF GWEN J. 20 ) Defendants. ) HAUENSTEIN AND HER ATTORNEY 21 LE PHUQUE, LLC, a California Limited ) OF RECORD MAJID SAFAIE AND Liability Company, ) BRIAN STUART OF ARYA LAW 22 ) CENTER, P.C., JOINTLY AND ) SEVERALLY; MEMORANDUM OF 23 Cross-Complainant, ) ) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 24 Vs. ) ) [Concurrently filed with Declaration of Fay 25 ) GARY E. HAUENSTEIN, an individual, ) Pugh and Separate Statement] 26 GWEN J. HAUENSTEIN, an individual, ) and ROES 1 to 50, inclusive, ) Date: June 6, 2023 27 ) Time: 8:30 a.m. ) Place: Dept. SM2 28 Cross-Defendants. ) 1 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP ) Complaint Filed: October 27, 2020 1 ) Trial Date: None 2 3 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: 4 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on the 6th day of June, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon 5 thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department SM 2 of the above-entitled Court located 6 at 312-C East Cook Street, Bldg. E., Santa Maria, California 93454, Defendant Ara Baljian 7 (“Defendant”) will and hereby does move for an Order Compelling Plaintiff Gwen J. 8 Hauenstein (“Plaintiff”) to (1) Withdraw her Objections to the Entire First Set of Demand for 9 Production of Documents, (2) Provide a Verification for her Responses, (3) Provide Further 10 Responses to Demand Numbers 1-26, 28-32, 34 and 35 for Imposition of Monetary Sanctions 11 in the amount of $3,085 against Plaintiff and her attorney of record, Brian Stuart and Majid 12 Safaie of Arya Law Center, PC, jointly and severally. 13 The Motion is made on the ground that Plaintiff was served with the subject discovery 14 on May 31, 2022. The responses were untimely served in August of 2022, accordingly, 15 objections were waived. Her responses are not verified. Plaintiff has provided defective 16 responses to the above-listed demands. 17 Despite repeatedly promising to respond, Defendant’s numerous meet and confer efforts 18 and extensions granted from September of 2022 to March 2023, Plaintiff has yet to withdraw 19 her untimely objections, provide further responses and a verification and produce responsive 20 documents. 21 This Motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2023.010, et seq. 22 and 2031.010, et seq. and is based upon this Notice, the Memorandum of Points and 23 Authorities filed herewith, the concurrently filed Declaration of Fay Pugh, the complete files 24 and records in this action, and all other matters and evidence that may be presented at the 25 hearing on this Motion. 26 /// 27 /// 28 2 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP Dated: April 11, 2023 LAW OFFICES OF SAUL REISS, P.C. 1 2 3 ________________________________ Saul Reiss, Esq. 4 Fay Pugh, Esq. 5 Attorneys for Defendants ARA BALJIAN and BMI GROUP, INC. and Defendant/Cross- 6 Complainant LE PHUQUE, LLC 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS / PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 3 A. THE COMPLAINTS. 4 Plaintiff Gary and Gwen Hauenstein (“Hauensteins”) claim to be the owners of three 5 parcels of land, commonly known as 3333 Avena Road, Lompoc, California (collectively, the 6 “Property”). According to Hauensteins, Defendants claim to own the Property. Defendants 7 allegedly entered into oral and written agreements, which they breached and have committed 8 fraud. 9 On October 27, 2020, Hauensteins filed their Complaint against Defendants Ara 10 Baljian, Le Phuque LLC and Nationstar Mortgage Company alleging breach of oral contract, 11 fraud, fraud in the inducement, fraud in the concealment, quiet title and declaratory relief. 12 Hauensteins voluntarily dismissed Defendant Nationstar Mortgage Company. 13 Defendants Ara Baljian and Le Phuque’s demurrer to the Complaint was sustained 14 with leave to amend as to all causes of action. 15 On September 17, 2021, Hauensteins filed their First Amended Complaint alleging 16 the same causes of action and added BMI as a defendant. 17 On February 4, 2022, Defendants’ demurrers were sustained as to all causes of action 18 of the First Amended Complaint, with leave to amend. 19 Hauensteins filed their Second Amended Complaint alleging the same claims and 20 added three new defendants. 21 On October 4, 2022, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the second, third 22 and fourth causes of action for fraud, fraud in inducement and fraud in concealment, fifth and 23 sixth causes of action for quiet title and declaratory relief and granted the motion to strike as 24 to the alter ego allegations, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees request. 25 On or about October 31, 2022, Hauensteins filed their Third Amended Complaint 26 alleging breach of contract and fraud. 27 On December 8, 2022, Defendants filed their answer to the Third Amended 28 Complaint. 4 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP 1 B. THE CROSS-COMPLAINT. 2 On December 8, 2022, Cross-Complainant Le Phuque filed its Cross-Complaint for 3 trespass, ejectment and writ of possession against Hauensteins based on the following facts: 4 Hauensteins borrowed $168,500 from Le Phuque memorialized in a Note secured by a deed 5 of trust secured by the Property. The Note provided that 6 “Should the trustor or his successors in interest, without the consent in writing 7 of the beneficiary, sell, transfer or convey or permit to be sold, transferred or conveyed, his interest in the property, or any part thereof, then the beneficiary 8 may, at his option, declare all sums secured hereby immediately due and payable.” 9 Without notice, knowledge or consent of Le Phuque, on May 31, 2019, Hauenstein 10 executed a Grant Deed transferring the Property to The Monterrosa Firm, Inc. On November 11 27, 2019, The Monterrosa Firm, Inc. executed a Grant Deed transferring the Property to 12 Golden Phoenix, LLC. 13 Shortly thereafter, Le Phuque discovered that Hauenstein had transferred the Property 14 and demanded repayment of the loan. Hauenstein claimed that they did not owe any money 15 and refused to repay the loan. 16 In December of 2019, Le Phuque declared the entire amount under the Note due and 17 owing and caused to be recorded a Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust. 18 On or about April 30, 2020, the Notice of Trustee’s Sale provided that the sale of the Property 19 would take place on June 3, 2020. On November 11, 2020, the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale 20 was recorded by which Le Phuque became the owner of the Property. 21 Since November 11, 2020, Hauenstein have continued to occupy the Property and 22 have failed and refused to vacate the same or pay rent to Le Phuque. 23 II. THE DISCOVERY AT ISSUE IN THIS MOTION AND MEET AND CONFER 24 EFFORTS. 25 On May 31, 2022, Defendants served Form Interrogatories (“FI”), Special 26 Interrogatories (“SI”), and Demand for Production of Documents (“RFPs”), Sets One on 27 Plaintiffs. (Declaration of Fay Pugh (“Pugh Decl.,”), Exhibits 1 through 7). 28 5 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP 1 On August 24, 2022, after numerous requests by Defendants’ counsel, Hauenstein 2 served objections and defective responses to FIs, SIs, and RFPs. (Pugh Decl., Exhibits 7 3 through 12). 4 Hauenstein produced 5,033 pages of documents to Defendant Ara Baljian’s RFPs, Sets 5 One, but have failed to indicate which document is responsive to which demand in the RFPs 6 as required by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.280(a). 7 From September 3, 2022 to February 20, 2023, Defendants’ counsel met and conferred 8 with Plaintiff’s counsel during which time Plaintiff’s counsel requested additional time to 9 respond and requested extension after extensions, which were granted. The final extension 10 granted for Plaintiff to provide supplemental responses was March 15, 2023 with Defendants’ 11 deadline to file motions to compel is April 14, 2023. (Pugh Decl., Exhibits 14 and 17). 12 The details of the meet and confer are set forth in the Declaration of Fay Pugh and are 13 not repeated here in order to avoid duplication and waste of the Court’s time. 14 After requesting and being granted numerous additional extensions, no responses or 15 additional documents have been provided by Hauenstein. 16 III. DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED. 17 Where a response has been made, but the demanding party is not satisfied with it, the 18 remedy is a motion to compel further responses. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310. This motion 19 can be utilized to attack a response containing objections, or an agreement to comply that is 20 incomplete or a statement of inability to comply that is incomplete or evasive. Code of Civ. 21 Proc. §2031.310(a). 22 If the responding party fails to permit inspection in accordance with its agreement to 23 comply with an inspection demand, the demanding party’s remedy is to file a motion 24 compelling compliance. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.320. 25 A. HAVING FAILED TO TIMELY RESPOND TO DISCOVERY, 26 PLAINTIFF HAS WAIVED HER RIGHT TO ASSERT OBJECTIONS. 27 The subject discovery were served on May 31, 2022. (Pugh Decl., Exhibit 3). The 28 responses were served after numerous requests on August 24, 2022 and included objections. 6 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP 1 (Pugh Decl., Exhibit 10). No extension for the responses was granted. Accordingly, having 2 served untimely responses, Plaintiff has waived the right to object. 3 The response is due thirty days after service of the demand extended where served by 4 mail, overnight delivery or fax or electronically. See Code of Civ. Proc. §§1010.6(a)(4), 1013. 5 Code of Civ. Proc. §§2031.260, 2016.050. Failing to respond to a Code of Civ. Proc. 6 §2031.010 demand within the time permitted waives all objections to the demand, including 7 claims of privilege and work product. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.300(a). 8 B. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES ARE NOT VERIFIED. 9 Plaintiff’s responses are not verified. (Pugh Decl., Exhibit 10). The response must be 10 signed “under oath” by the party to whom it is directed. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.250. 11 C. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEMAND NUMBERS 1-26, 28-43, 34 12 AND 35 ARE DEFECTIVE. 13 i. Demand Number 9: 14 Plaintiff has objected to this demand. As set forth, having failed to timely respond, 15 she has waived the right to object. Failing to respond to a Code of Civ. Proc. 16 §2031.010 demand within the time permitted waives all objections to the demand, including 17 claims of privilege and work product. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.300(a). 18 ii. Demand Numbers 1-8, 10-20, 22-26, 29-31, 35: 19 In response to these demands, Plaintiff states “This Responding Party will comply 20 with this request and has attached such responsive documents that in their possession, custody 21 or control.” 22 Plaintiffs have produced 5,033 pages of documents. However, they have failed to 23 indicate which document is responsive to which demand. Accordingly, the responses fail to 24 comply with Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.280, which provides that documents must be sorted 25 and labeled to correspond with the categories in the document demand. It is impossible to 26 determine which document is responsive to which request. 27 /// 28 /// 7 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP 1 iii. Demand Numbers 21, 28, 32, 34: 2 In response to these demands, Plaintiff states “This Responding party will comply 3 with this request at such time as such responsive documents become available to this 4 responding party and will supplement their responses to reflect the same when obtained.” 5 This action was instituted in October of 2020, more than 2½ years ago. Plaintiff must 6 have had documents in support of her own allegations before filing the action and has had 7 ample time since the filing of the action and the service of the discovery months ago to locate 8 and produce the documents. In fact, she has had since August of 2022 to now to find 9 documents and produce the same. 10 It is unclear why the documents are not available and how they will become available 11 at a later time. When will the documents become available? The term “when obtained” is 12 unacceptable. If Plaintiff does not currently have responsive documents, then the proper 13 response is an inability to comply. If Plaintiff is unable to comply, then her response shall 14 state that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to locate the item 15 demanded and the reason she is unable to comply, e.g., the document never existed, has been 16 lost, stolen, destroyed, or is not in the possession, custody or control of the responding party, 17 in which case, the response must state the name and address of anyone believed to have the 18 document. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.230. If Plaintiff later discovers responsive documents, 19 she can always amend her responses and produce the responsive documents. 20 D. THERE IS “GOOD CAUSE” FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE 21 DOCUMENTS. 22 The motion for order compelling further responses “shall set forth specific facts 23 showing good causing showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection 24 demand.” Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(b)(1); Kirkland v. Sup. Ct. (Guess.?, Inc.) (2002) 95 25 Cal.App.4th 92, 98. If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden is then on the 26 responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. Kirkland, supra, 95 27 Cal.App.4th at 98. 28 8 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP 1 Each of the subject demands seek documents concerning a specific allegation in 2 Plaintiff’s complaint, accordingly, the documents are directly relevant to this action and good 3 cause for their production exists. (Pugh Decl., Exhibit 3). 4 Courts have construed the discovery statutes broadly, so as to uphold the right to 5 discovery. Williams v. Sup.Ct. (Marshalls of CA, LLC) (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; Emerson 6 Elec. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Grayson) (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1108; see Obregon v. Sup.Ct. (Cimm’s, 7 Inc.) (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 434 (citing text). 8 Clearly, documents regarding Plaintiff’s allegation are relevant. The first and most 9 basic limitation on the scope of discovery is that the information sought must be relevant to 10 the “subject matter” of the pending action or to the determination of a motion in that action. 11 Code of Civ. Proc. §2017.010. 12 Obtaining documents regarding Plaintiff’s claims will assist Defendant in this action. 13 For discovery purposes, information should be regarded as “relevant” to the subject matter if 14 it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or 15 facilitating settlement. Gonzalez v. Sup.Ct. (City of San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 16 1539, 1546 (citing text); Lipton v. Sup.Ct. (Lawyers’ Mutual Ins. Co.) (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 17 1599, 611 (citing text); Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 18 1013 (citing text). 19 Plaintiff should be ordered to provide further responses in the proper format as 20 required by Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.210 et. seq. because each of said documents is relevant 21 to the subject matter of this action and is not privileged or otherwise exempt from discovery, 22 and because good cause exists for the production in that it is necessary to inspect the same in 23 order to prepare this case for trial. Defendant submits that since the documents requested in 24 the Demand are basic and foundational, which are essential for the prosecution of the case, 25 Plaintiff’s failure to respond and produce responsive documents, is without justification. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 9 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP 1 E. SANCTIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED. 2 Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.310(h) provides 3 “Except as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary 4 sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to 5 compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make 6 the imposition of the sanction unjust.” 7 Code of Civ. Proc. §2023.010 provides 8 “Misuse of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: 9 … (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. … 10 (e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery. (f) Making an evasive response to discovery. … (h) Making or 11 opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery. (i) Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or 12 by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith 13 attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery.” If the party properly asks for monetary sanctions, the court “shall” impose a monetary 14 sanction against whichever party loses on the motion to compel compliance unless it finds 15 that party made or opposed the motion “with substantial justification” or other circumstances 16 make the sanction “unjust.” Code of Civ. Proc. §§2031.320(b) and 2023.030(a). 17 From September 3, 2022 to February 20, 2023, Defendant’s counsel met and conferred 18 with Plaintiff’s counsel during which time Plaintiff’s counsel requested additional time to 19 respond and requested extension after extensions, which were granted. The final extension 20 granted for Plaintiff to provide responses was March 15, 2023 with Defendants’ deadline to 21 file motions to compel is April 14, 2023. (Pugh Decl., Exhibits 14 and 17). 22 After requesting and being granted numerous additional extensions, no further 23 responses or additional responsive documents has been provided by Plaintiff. Her failure to 24 respond after numerous meet and confer attempts and extensions granted justifies the 25 imposition of sanctions. By virtue of having to bring the instant motion, Defendant has 26 incurred costs in the amount of $60 and attorneys’ fees in the amount of $3,025 as fully 27 explained in the concurrently filed Declaration of Fay Pugh. 28 10 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP 1 IV. CONCLUSION. 2 Based on the foregoing, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court order Plaintiff 3 to Withdraw her Objections to the entire set of Demand for Production of Documents, provide 4 her verification to the responses, produce responsive documents and provide further responses 5 to Demand Numbers 1-26, 28-43, 34 and 35 and Impose Monetary Sanctions in the amount 6 of $3,085 against Plaintiff and her attorney of record, jointly and severally. 7 Dated: April 11, 2023 LAW OFFICES OF SAUL REISS, P.C. 8 9 10 ________________________________ Saul Reiss, Esq. 11 Fay Pugh, Esq. 12 Attorneys for Defendants ARA BALJIAN and BMI GROUP, INC. and Defendant/Cross- 13 Complainant LE PHUQUE, LLC 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP PROOF OF SERVICE 1 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 415E, 4 Los Angeles, CA 90064; my email is fay.pugh@outlook.com 5 On April 12, 2023, I caused the foregoing document described as 6 7 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY DEFENDANT ARA BALJIAN TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF GWEN J. HAUENSTEIN TO WITHDRAW HER UNTIMELY 8 OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION FOR HER RESPONSES AND PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF 9 DOCUMENTS, SET ONE AND FOR IMPOSITION OF MONETARY SANCTIONS 10 IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,085 AGAINST PLAINTIFF GWEN J. HAUENSTEIN AND HER ATTORNEY OF RECORD MAJID SAFAIE AND BRIAN STUART OF ARYA 11 LAW CENTER, P.C., JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 12 13 to be served on the interested parties in this action addressed as follows: 14 Majid Safaie, Esq. majid.safaie@aryalc.com 15 Brian Stuart, Esq. 16 brian.stuart@aryalc.com Arya Law Center, PC 17 3187 Red Hill Ave., Suite 115 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: 877-279-2523 18 Fax: 877-235-1558 19 / X / (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) I caused the above-referenced document to be served 20 through One Legal addressed to all parties listed herein. The service transmission was reported as complete and a copy of the One Legal Receipt Filing Page/Confirmation will be 21 maintained with the original document in my office. 22 / X / (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that 23 the above is true and correct. 24 Executed on April 12, 2023, at Los Angeles, California. 25 26 27 __________________ 28 Fay Pugh 12 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION BY DEFENDANT TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO WITHDRAW UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS, PROVIDE A VERIFICATION & PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFP