Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV22388, Date: 2024-07-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV22388    Hearing Date: July 1, 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

 Plaintiff Frankie Lane (“Plaintiff”) now moves for an order to deem admitted Requests for Admission, Set One propounded on Defendant Raman Dlamini (“Defendant”). Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions. Defendant opposes and Plaintiff replies.

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).)¿ 

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

Here, Plaintiff asserts that he served Requests for Admission, Set One on Defendant on March 21, 2024. (Fantasia Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Responses were due April 23, 2024. (Id. ¶ 3.)

The proof of service of the Request for Admissions, Set One, shows it was served electronically on Defendant’s counsel on March 21, 2024. (See Fantasia Decl., Exh. A.)

In opposition, Defendant’s counsel argues the discovery went to her spam folder and she did not see it until this motion was filed. (Wolf Decl. ¶ 3–4.)

In reply, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has sent discovery responses prior to this hearing and now only seeks monetary sanctions. Plaintiff questions that the discovery went to Defendant counsel’s spam folder since previous discovery sets had been sent without issue.

Plaintiff requests $1,095 in monetary sanctions against Defendant and counsel of record representing an hourly rate of $450 and the $60.00 filing fee. Even though monetary sanctions are mandatory, the Court finds there is question of whether Defendant’s counsel received actual notice of the underlying discovery which contributed to the failure to respond. As a result, given that Defendant’s counsel declared that the responses went to her spam folder, the Court declines to award monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to deem admitted Request for Admissions, Set One is DENIED as moot.

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