Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 20STCV48499, Date: 2024-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 20STCV48499    Hearing Date: March 14, 2024    Dept: F51

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED

(Requests for Admission, Set One)

Motion Filed: 11/20/23

MOVING PARTY: Cross-Defendant Direct 2U Insurance Services (“Cross-Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants/Cross-Complainants John Harris; and Kavah Harris (“Cross-Complainants”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order deeming each of Cross-Defendant’s Requests for Admission (“RFAs”), Set One, propounded on Cross-Complainants, be admitted.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion is granted. The Court deems each of Cross-Defendant’s RFAs, Set One as admitted. The Court imposes sanctions against Cross-Complainants in the amount of $250.00. 

Cross-Defendant is reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil (particularly bookmarking declarations and exhibits). (CRC 3.1110(f)(4).) Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers being rejected, matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.

BACKGROUND

This is an action for subrogation and indebtedness arising from a vehicle collision which took place on 5/10/19. (Pl.’s Mot. 4:1–2.)  On 12/18/20, Plaintiff California Casualty and Indemnity Exchange filed its complaint, alleging against Defendants/Cross-Complainants the following causes of action: (1) Subrogation; and (2) Indebtedness. On 6/2/22, Cross-Complainants filed their operative third amended complaint, alleging against three named cross-defendants the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Declaratory Relief; and (4) Negligence.

On 9/19/23, Cross-Defendant served Cross-Complainants with its RFAs, Set One by electronic service. (Decl. of Shain Wasser ¶ 2.) On 11/20/23, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to deem its RFAs as admitted. No opposition has been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

A.    Legal Standard

A responding party must respond to each propounded request for admission with either a substantive answer or an objection to the particular request. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.210.) 

A propounding party may move for an order deeming the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2033.280, subd. (b); 2033.250, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “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 requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Id. at subd. (c).)

Here, as Cross-Defendant served its RFAs on Defendant by e-mail on 9/19/23, the last day for Cross-Complainants to serve their responses was 10/23/23. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.260, subd. (a); 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).) Cross-Complainants have not served any responses to date, nor have they filed any opposition to the instant motion. (Wasser Decl. ¶ 4.) As Cross-Complainants failed to timely serve any response to Cross-Defendant’s RFAs, they have consequently waived any objections thereto. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (a).) Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Cross-Defendant’s unopposed motion to deem its RFAs, Set One to Cross-Complainants as admitted.

B.     Sanctions¿ 

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) 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, subd. (c).) Additionally, “the court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Here, in granting the instant motion, the Court finds it reasonable to award Cross-Defendant sanctions against Cross-Complainants in the amount of $250.00.

//

//

//

CONCLUSION¿ 

The unopposed motion is granted. The Court deems each of Cross-Defendant’s RFAs, Set One as admitted. The Court imposes sanctions against Cross-Complainants in the amount of $250.00.