Skip to main content
Skip to main content.

Fraud Alert: Scam Text Messages Claiming DMV Penalties -

Learn more here.

Jury Scam alert -

Learn more here.

Zohreh Ajami, Sayed Jamalzadeh vs SB Parlors LLC; Rusty’s Pizza Parlors Inc et al

Case Number

24CV04438

Case Type

Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 07/02/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

3 Motion(s) to Compel; Motion to Continue

Tentative Ruling

Bradford Brown, Stephanie K. Sivers, for Plaintiff

Charles Schmitt, Christine A. Wilton, Mark P. LaScola, for Defendants

RULING

The Motion(s) to Compel are GRANTED. Responses due July 23, 2025. Sanctions are DENIED. The trial date of 10/1/25 is confirmed.

Analysis

These are unopposed motions by Defendants S.B. Parlors, LLC and Rusty’s Pizza Parlors, Inc.: (1) to continue trial; (2) to compel responses from Plaintiff Zohreh Ajami to Special Interrogatories, set one; (3) to compel responses from Plaintiff Zohreh Ajami to Request for Production of Documents, Set One; and (4) to compel responses from Plaintiff Zohreh Ajami to Form Interrogatories, Set One.

With respect to the motion to continue trial, after the filing of the motion, the parties submitted a stipulation and proposed order to continue trial on May 29, 2025. The Court denied this stipulation with the note, “This is not complicated litigation.”

With respect to the motions to compel, Defendants filed a notice of non-receipt of opposition on June 23. No opposition has been filed. Each motion separately requests an award of monetary sanctions in the amount of $822.50.

The Court’s Conclusions

This case should not be continued; it was filed in 8/2024 [On October 13, 2022, Plaintiff Zonreh Ajami was a guest at Defendant Rusty's Pizza Parlors at 3731 State Street in Santa

Barbara. While exiting from a seating booth, Zohreh stepped off an unmarked ledge and fell to the ground, resulting in damages and injuries. Plaintiff’s husband filed a loss of consortium claim]; answered in 11/2024; the trial date was set on 12/11/24 giving counsel 10 months to prepare the case.

The Court understands there are busy lawyers with impacted trial calendars, and they expected the Court would just agree to the continuance; sanctions are not appropriate.

Was this helpful?

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.