Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV03346, Date: 2023-07-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV03346    Hearing Date: April 17, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

            Defendant Levons Edgars Isajans (Defendant) moves to deem admitted matters in the Requests for Admissions, Set One served on Plaintiff Daniel Cedillos (Plaintiff, in pro per). Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Where there has been no timely response to a request for admission under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.010, the propounding 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.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants that party relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).)  The court “shall” grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “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.”  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) 

The Discovery Act does not define “substantial compliance” in the context of service of a proposed response that complies with Code Civ. Proc., section 2033.220. The courts have ruled that “substantial compliance” means actual compliance with all matters of substance and that technical deviations are not to be given the stature of noncompliance. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 779.) For example, unverified responses are not in substantial compliance. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Additionally, RFA responses must be examined in their entirety. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 780.)

Unverified discovery responses are tantamount to no response at all, and are subject to a motion to compel responses (rather than a motion to compel further responses).¿ (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 635-36.)¿ However, objections to discovery responses do not require a verification. (See Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 656.)

Where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t 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).)

DISCUSSION

On July 24, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s then-counsel’s motion to be relieved. Plaintiff is currently self-represented.

Here, Defendant asserts that he electronically served Requests for Admissions, Set One on Plaintiff on January 18, 2024. (Clark Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) The proof of service of the Request for Admissions shows it was also served by mail. (See Exh. A.) The responses were due February 22, 2024. As of the date of filing this motion, no responses have been served. (Id. ¶ 3.)

However, the address in the proof of service of the discovery and this motion, do not match the address for Plaintiff provided in the Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved. (Order, 7/24/23.) Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 requires “written notice” of a motion including the date, time and location of the hearing on a motion. A moving party’s failure to serve the notice of motion and moving papers on a non-moving party violates the basic principles of procedural due process under the federal and state constitutions – notice and an opportunity to be heard.¿ (Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) 455 U.S. 422, 428 [minimum due process requires notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case]; Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612 [due process principles require reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard].)

Based on the face of the proof of service, it does not appear Plaintiff has received notice of the discovery request or this motion. Therefore, the motion to deem the truth of matters in Defendant’s Request for Admissions, is denied as procedurally defective. The Court accordingly denies the request for monetary sanctions. To the extent Defendant argues that he also provided electronic notice, there is no evidence that Plaintiff has affirmatively consented to electronic service. (See Cal. R. Ct. 2.251; Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6(c).)

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to deem the truth of matters in Request for Admissions, Set One, is DENIED on procedural grounds.  

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.