Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV38587, Date: 2024-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV38587    Hearing Date: February 20, 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 Sam Argyropoulos (“Plaintiff”) moves to deem admitted Request for Admissions, Set One against Defendant Elite Recondition, Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions. Defendant opposes.  

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

Here, Plaintiff served Request for Admissions, Set One on Defendant on September 13, 2023. (Thomassian Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) The deadline to respond was extended to December 4, 2023. (Id. ¶ 3.)

In opposition, Defendant asserts that it served responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One on January 22, 2024. (Ashcraft Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. 1.) The motion to deem admitted must be denied if the responses are in substantial compliance with section 2033.220. Here, the responses are not verified. Therefore, because “[u]nverified discovery responses are tantamount to no response at all,” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636), they are not in substantial compliance. Unless Defendant can show that it served a verification to Plaintiff by the hearing, the motion to deem admitted will be granted.  

             Plaintiff seeks $572.26 in monetary sanctions against Defendant representing a $250 hourly rate, the $60 filing fee, a $5 photocopy fee, and $7.26 e-filing fee. Though Defendant argues sanctions should not be imposed since it served responses before the hearing, sanctions under section 2033.280(c) are mandatory. Therefore, regardless of whether Defendant serves a verified response, the Court awards sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $572.26.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motions to deem admitted Requests for Admissions, Set One against Defendant Elite Recondition, Inc. is conditionally granted.

The Court further GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $572.26. Said monetary sanctions are to be paid to counsel for Plaintiff within 30 days of the date of this order. 

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