poopak khosrowshahi, Plaintiff, v. SHAHIDEH KHODADADI, et al. Defendants.
Case No.: 18STCV00616
Hearing Date: October 28, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
MOTION for reconsideration
Background
Plaintiff Poopak Khosrowshahi (Plaintiff) commenced this action against Defendants Shahideh Khodadadi (Khodadadi), M. Azhar Asadi (Asadi), and the Law Offices of M. Azhar Asadi & Associates APC (Law Offices) (collectively, Defendants) on October 9, 2018. The Complaint asserts a single cause of action for malicious prosecution.
On September 14, 2020, the Court denied Asadi’s and Khodadadi’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s further discovery responses. The Court pointed out that both motions suffered from several procedural defects: (1) the motions lacked separate statements in violation of CRC Rule 3.1345(a), (2) the motions failed to include any exhibits, including the discovery requests and responses at issue, and (3) the motions had improperly combined requests for further responses with respect
Hearing Date
October 28, 2020
Type
Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
poopak khosrowshahi, Plaintiff, v. SHAHIDEH KHODADADI, et al. Defendants.
Case No.: 18STCV00616
Hearing Date: October 28, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
MOTION for reconsideration
Background
Plaintiff Poopak Khosrowshahi (Plaintiff) commenced this action against Defendants Shahideh Khodadadi (Khodadadi), M. Azhar Asadi (Asadi), and the Law Offices of M. Azhar Asadi & Associates APC (Law Offices) (collectively, Defendants) on October 9, 2018. The Complaint asserts a single cause of action for malicious prosecution.
On September 14, 2020, the Court denied Asadi’s and Khodadadi’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s further discovery responses. The Court pointed out that both motions suffered from several procedural defects: (1) the motions lacked separate statements in violation of CRC Rule 3.1345(a), (2) the motions failed to include any exhibits, including the discovery requests and responses at issue, and (3) the motions had improperly combined requests for further responses with respect