Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV09491, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09491    Hearing Date: February 7, 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 Ralphs Grocery Company (Defendant), moves to deem admitted Requests for Admissions, Set One, against Plaintiff Charles Thornton (Plaintiff). On January 5, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration of non-opposition stating that responses were served. In reply, Defendant confirms that Plaintiff served responses to Request for Admissions, Set One, and no longer seeks to deem Plaintiff’s responses admitted. However, Defendant seeks monetary sanctions.   

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.)   

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, Defendant served Requests for Admissions on Plaintiff on July 11, 2023. (Feffer Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. A.) On August 17, 2023, Defendant sent an email to Plaintiff informing the responses were late. (Id. ¶ 6.) Defendant also informed Plaintiff that if any responses were received after a motion was filed, it would remain on calendar for monetary sanctions. (Id.)

 Defendant granted an extension, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request, until August 25, 2023. (Id. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff failed to respond by the deadline.

Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration stating that verified responses were served January 5, 2024. (Reyes Decl. ¶ 3.)

As a result, Defendant only seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record for $982.50, representing an hourly rate of $195 and the $60 filing fee. Section 2033.280(c) requires sanctions against “the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” Therefore, as Plaintiff did not provide timely responses before the filing of this motion, sanctions are mandatory. However, the Court finds the amount to be excessive in light of the type of motion at issue. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $450 (2 hours of attorney time to file and appear at the hearing, plus the $60 filing fee).¿ 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court awards monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorney of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $450.00. Said monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for Defendant within 30 days of the date of this order. 

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