Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV37441, Date: 2024-04-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37441    Hearing Date: April 8, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff’s Motion For An Order Deeming Matters In Requests For Admission, Set One, Be Deemed Admitted As Against Defendants Construction Servicing Center  Inc. dba Sunuso Energy And Zepyor Parseghian And For An Order Imposing Monetary Sanctions Against Defendants And Their Attorney Of Record In The Amount Of $1,426.00.

F.E. DISTRIBUTION, INC. (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against CONSTRUCTION SERVICING CENTER, INC. and ZEPYOR PARSEGHIAN (Defendants), alleging that they breached a written agreement, by failing to pay invoices in the total sum of $85.024.03 for Plaintiff’s provided materials, and failing to perform as personal guarantors. The causes of action are: 1) Breach Of Contract; 2) Account Stated; 3) Quantum Valebant; and 4) Open Book Account.

Presently, Plaintiff brings a motion requesting an order deeming admitted against Defendants requests for admissions, and imposing $1,426.00 in sanctions upon them and counsel, on grounds including that they failed to provide any responses by the extended due date. Defendants did not file an opposition.

A motion to deem admitted requests for admissions lies based upon a showing of failure to respond timely. Code Civ. Proc., §2033.280(b). Requests for admissions must be deemed admitted where no responses in substantial compliance was served before the hearing. Code Civ. Proc., §2033.280(c). As to motions to deem matters admitted, no meet and confer is required. Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, overruled on other grounds by Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983. As to a motion to deem matters admitted, moving parties are entitled to sanctions which are statutorily mandated as to a party or attorney whose failure to serve timely responses necessitated the motion. Appleton v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 635;  Code Civ. Proc., §2033.280(c).

Applying the applicable law, the Court finds that Defendants have sufficiently showed that Plaintiff failed to serve any responses to the requests for admission. That finding supports a ruling deeming admitted the requests and imposing monetary sanctions. Therefore, the Court grants the unopposed motion.