Judge: Andre De La Cruz, Case: 2022-01291209, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Deem Facts Admitted filed by Martin Vogel on 5/15/23

Plaintiff moves the Court for an order deeming the truth of all matters specified in Request for Admissions, Set No. One served on Defendant, Ruan Investments LLC, on February 8, 2023, admitted and conclusively established.

Plaintiff also seek sanctions in the amount of $1,520.00 against Ruan Investments, LLC.

Under C.C.P. § 2033.280:

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . .

(a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . . .

(b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction . . . .

(c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the request for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction . . . on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”

Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(a), (b), (c) (emphasis added).

In this instance, the Declaration of Attorney Cindi Segovia-Leiva establishes Defendant failed to serve responses to RFAs.[Decl. ¶3. While counsel sent meet and confer letters, to date, no responses were ever received. Id.¶¶5-7.

However, disturbingly, counsel for Defendant files an (unsigned) declaration stating, “On March 27, 2023, Defendant served verified responses to first sets of discovery. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the responses to the requests for admission served on Vogel’s counsel, Sara Johnson (via email saraj@potterhandy.com), who was identified as the propounding attorney on the discovery. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 are true and correct copies of Ruan’s responses to the other written discovery, also served on Sara Johnson. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the verification for the responses. Counsel for Vogel agreed to extend the response date to serve the discovery responses.” Decl. of Cabanday, ¶ 3, Ex. 1.

Therefore, here, not only were the responses served, but they were served prior to the motion being filed on 5/15/2023.

As such, the motion is DENIED in its entirety.

Defendant to give notice.