MAHER MEMARZADEH VS. ANDREW NICHOLAS DIMITRIOU ET AL

Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Wednesday, May 20, 2026, Line 2. Defendant Andrew Dimitriou's Motion To Compel Form Interrogatories [sic] is DENIED.

Defendant identifies only one statute supporting his motion and that is Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.010. This section covers sanctions only. The court has "fundamental inherent equity, supervisory, and administrative powers, as well as inherent power to control litigation before [it]." (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 967, citing Cottle v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1377.) On this record, the court declines to exercise its jurisdiction or discretion to enter the order Defendant seeks.

In connection with the 3/13/2026 hearing and order, Defendant was obligated to submit a proposed order. (See LRSF rule 8.3(g).) Generally, orders are not enforceable until the party against whom enforcement is sought receives written notice. Defendant failed to submit a proposed order (let alone serve notice of the executed order). Absent a written order, Defendant cannot establish Plaintiff received notice of the order. Under the circumstances, the court declines to issue an order of enforcement.

This is an attorney malpractice action. Many of the for interrogatories were answered in substance. Those that were not are almost entirely not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (See Code of Civil Procedure Section 2017.010.) In the context of this case, they are confusing and abusive. On this record, The court will not compel further responses or impose additional sanctions. The only possible exception is Form Rog no. 15.1. But, as noted, Defendant's failure to submit a proposed order bars relief on this motion. Defendant's separate statement was incomplete as to Form Rog. no. 17.1 and Special Rog. no.

2. The request for further response to these interrogatories is denied on these grounds. Moving Defendant is ordered to prepare a proposed order quoting the above verbatim and email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the time set for hearing.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JMQ) | |