Gohar Bosnuyan, et al. v. Hyland Inn Near Pasadena Civic Center, et al.

(Pasadena Courthouse: Dept. P) August 20, 2026 DEPARTMENT P LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Gohar Bosnuyan, Eric Vivanco-Perez and David Bosnuyan, a minor, by Gohar Bosnuyan as his guardian ad litem ("Plaintiffs"), bring this action against Defendants Hyland Inn Near Pasadena Civic Center; RVN Inc. and Vimal Patel ("Defendants"), alleging causes of action for (1) battery, (2) negligence, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) fraudulent concealment, (5) private nuisance, (6) public nuisance, and (7) breach of contract.

Plaintiffs allege they were knowingly assigned to a hotel room infested with bedbugs, which caused physical and emotional injuries, property damage, and other harm. On March 3, 2026, Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on May 28, 2026, and Defendants filed a reply on June 2, 2026. II. LEGAL STANDARD The purpose of a motion for summary judgment "is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties' pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute." (Aguilar v.

Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) "Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and 'all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence' and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) "On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make¿a prima facie¿showing that there are no triable issues of material fact." (Scalf v.

D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment "has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c(p)(2).) "Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto." (Id.) "If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted." (Avivi v.

Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.) "When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment." (Avivi, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (c).) III. ANALYSIS This is an action arising from Plaintiffs Gohar Bosnuyan, Eric Vivanco-Perez, and minor David Bosnuyan's alleged exposure to bedbugs while staying at the Hyland Inn in Pasadena from December 16 through December 21, 2022, and December 31, 2023.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants RVC Inc., Hyland Inn, and Vimal Patel knew or should have known of the presence of bedbugs at the hotel, failed to adequately inspect or remediate the condition, and that Plaintiffs suffered injuries as a result. Defendants move for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication of Plaintiffs' causes of action for battery, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent concealment, and breach of contract, as well as Plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages.

Defendants principally contend that Plaintiffs cannot establish that bedbugs were present at the hotel or that Defendants failed to reasonably respond after Plaintiffs reported the alleged condition. (Notice, p. 2; Motion, pp. 8-10.) Defendants assert that hotel staff immediately inspected Plaintiffs' room, on December 21, 2022, after Plaintiffs reported bedbugs and found no evidence of bedbugs or their telltale signs. (Id. at 10.) Defendants further rely on a December 2025 entomologist report finding no evidence of bedbugs at the hotel and City of Pasadena inspection records from 2025. (Id. at pp. 9-11; SS Nos. 1-7.)

Defendants also rely heavily on the Court's January 28, 2026, order granting Defendants' motion to deem Plaintiffs' requests for admission admitted. (SS, Nos. 1-7.) Defendants have not met their initial burden

Defendants have not met their initial burden on summary judgment. Although Defendants rely extensively on the Court's January 28, 2026, order deeming Plaintiffs' requests for admission admitted, surprisingly, Defendants failed to submit the underlying requests for admission with the moving papers. (Motion, p. 9; SS, Nos. 2-7.) The order establishes that requests for admission were deemed admitted, but without the requests themselves, the Court cannot determine what facts were admitted or whether those admissions negate an element of Plaintiffs' causes of action.

Defendants' Separate Statement merely asserts that the requests for admission addressed Plaintiffs' causes of action and that the causes of action are therefore without merit. (SS, Nos. 1-2.) The Separate Statement does not cure this deficiency. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(d) requires the moving party to separately identify each material fact claimed to be undisputed and cite the evidence establishing that fact. Here, rather than identify the particular facts established by the deemed admissions, Defendants largely state ultimate legal conclusions.

For example, Defendants assert that "there was no battery of plaintiffs," that Defendants acted "timely and reasonably," and that Defendants are entitled to judgment on the individual causes of action, while citing generally to the order deeming the unidentified requests for admission admitted. (SS, Nos. 3-7.) Because the underlying factual propositions contained in the requests for admission are neither set forth in the Separate Statement nor established by the cited evidence, the Court cannot determine what facts were deemed admitted or whether those facts establish that one or more elements of Plaintiffs' causes of action cannot be established.

Nor does Defendants' remaining evidence satisfy their initial burden. Defendants rely on an entomologist report reflecting an inspection conducted on December 10, 2025, approximately three years after Plaintiffs' December 2022 stay, as well as City of Pasadena records from 2025. (SS, Nos. 1-7.) These materials do not establish the condition of Plaintiffs' hotel room at the time of the alleged incident in December 2022. Moreover, although Defendants assert that Plaintiffs' discovery responses contain no evidence supporting their claims, Defendants did not submit those discovery responses with the moving papers. (SS, No. 1.)

Thus, even assuming the January 28, 2026, order deeming the requests for admission admitted remains in effect, Defendants have not established the substance of those admissions or otherwise demonstrated through the evidence submitted with the moving papers that one or more elements of each challenged cause of action cannot be established. Because Defendants have not met their initial burden under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (p)(2), the burden does not shift to Plaintiffs, and the Court need not determine whether Plaintiffs have demonstrated a triable issue of material fact.

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and in the alternative, summary adjudication. IV. ORDER The Court DENIES Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and in the alternative, summary adjudication without prejudice. Defendants are to give notice. Dated: August 20, 2026 JARED D. MOSES JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

******************************************************************************************************************************** *************************** [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE and GRANTING MONETARY SANCTIONS I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Gohar Bosnuyan, Eric Vivanco-Perez and David Bosnuyan, a minor, by Gohar Bosnuyan as his guardian ad litem ("Plaintiffs"), bring this action against Defendants Hyland Inn Near Pasadena Civic Center; RVN Inc. and Vimal Patel ("Defendants"), alleging causes of action for (1) battery, (2) negligence, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) fraudulent concealment, (5) private nuisance, (6) public nuisance, and (7) breach of contract.

Plaintiffs allege they were knowingly assigned to a hotel room infested with bedbugs, which caused physical and emotional injuries, property damage, and other harm. On April 13, 2026, Defendants filed a motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production of