Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV09525, Date: 2023-11-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09525    Hearing Date: February 23, 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 Jalen Goins (Plaintiff) moves to have Request for Admissions, Set One Deemed Admitted against Defendant Michael Verna (Defendant). Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions. Defendant opposes.[1]

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

The motion is untimely. The proof of service shows that notice of this motion was served electronically. 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].)

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b), moving papers must be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. Applying this, 16 court days before the current hearing was January 30, 2024. Additionally, if notice is served electronically, the 16-day notice period is increased by two-court days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6(a).) Therefore, notice of this motion was due January 26, 2024 (two court days before January 30, 2024). According to the proof of service, Plaintiff served this motion electronically on January 30, 2024. Therefore, because notice was not provided within the minimum timeline provided by section 1005, the motion is procedurally defective.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to have Request for Admissions, Set One Deemed Admitted, is denied without prejudice as procedurally defective.

Plaintiff to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.