Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 21STCV07347, Date: 2023-05-10 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 21STCV07347    Hearing Date: February 5, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Pleadings

On February 25, 2021, Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (Plaintiff)—as assignee of interests held by State Compensation Insurance Fund (Assignor)—sued Defendant Addition Building & Design, Inc. (Addition B&D), Michael Ross (dba Green Build Design LA) and Does 1 through 10 pursuant to a Complaint alleging claims of (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Open Book Account, (3) Account Stated, and (4) Reasonable Value.

The claims arise from allegations that Defendant Addition B&D and Assignor entered into a written agreement through which Assignor agreed to provide a policy of workers compensation insurance to Defendant, bearing Policy No. 9203093-18 and providing coverage for the period of January 11, 2018 through January 11, 2019, for which Defendant agreed to pay premiums in accordance with the terms and conditions of said policy, only for Defendant Addition B&D to default on payments as of May 26, 2020, resulting in damages of $296,480.20, together with interest thereon at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from May 26, 2020.

Motion Before the Court

On September 12, 2023, Plaintiff served (1) a third set of requests for admission (RFAs, Set Three) on Defendant Ross and (2) a third set of requests for admission (RFAs, Set Three) on Defendant Addition B&D.

Based on their failure to respond, on October 24, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Defendants’ counsel.

On November 7, 2023, due to ongoing nonresponse, Plaintiff filed motions to deem RFAs, Set Three, admitted against Defendants Ross and Addition B&D. Both motions seek awards of monetary sanctions and were served via mail and email on Defendants’ counsel.

The motions are accompanied by a facially valid proof of service.

The motions are unopposed by Defendants Ross and Addition B&D and are now before the Court.

Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted

Legal Standard

The discovering party can make a motion to deem as admitted any unanswered requests for admission or any requests answered in a late or unverified response. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.240, subd. (a) [RFA responses must be signed by responding party under oath]; see Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [unsworn response to RFAs is treated like no response].) These requests are not automatically deemed admitted; the discovery party must make the motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

To establish this ground, a movant must show:

(1) Proper service (see Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.070);

(2) Expiration of the deadline for the initial response 30 days after service or on date agreed to by parties (see Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subds. (a), (b)); and

(3) That (a) the responding party served no response (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b)), (b) the propounding party served a late response (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b)); or (3) the responding party served an unsworn response (see Appleton v. Superior Court, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at p. 636 [unsworn response to RFAs is treated like no response]).

A court must deny a motion to compel initial discovery where the discovery sought is outside the scope of discovery. (See CBS, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19; see also Code. Civ. Proc., § 2017.010 [scope of discovery].)

Order Deeming RFAs Admitted: GRANTED.

Plaintiff shows the September 12, 2023 service of (1) RFAs, Set Three on Defendant Ross’s counsel and (2) RFAs, Set Three, on Defendant Addition B&D’s counsel. (All Motions, Frischer Decl., Ex. 1, Proof of Service.)

Plaintiff shows expiration of the deadline for the initial responses and Defendants’ ongoing failure to serve responses to these discovery requests. (See All Motions, Frischer Decl., ¶¶ 1-5.)

A review of the discovery requests shows that they are within the scope of discovery because they involve requests that go to admissible evidence or matters reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (All Motions, Frischer Decl., Ex. A.)

Plaintiffs’ motions are thus GRANTED.

Sanctions: GRANTED.

The Court must award sanctions when a party’s response is untimely, and the discovering party makes a motion to deem the requests admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c); see Stover v. Bruntz (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 19, 31-32; see e.g., Appleton v. Superior Court, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at pp. 635-636 [sanctions are mandatory].)

The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

The Court finds that the complete failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery—requests for admission—supports monetary sanctions against Defendants Ross and Addition B&D. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

The Court also finds that both motions sufficiently support the requested sanctions through nearly identical declarations from counsel, which specify the costs for filing each motion, the reasonable fee rate charged by counsel, and the reasonable hours expended in preparing each motion and expected to be expended in attending the hearing. (All Motions, Frischer Decl., ¶ 5.)

Both requests for sanctions are thus GRANTED, for a total monetary sanctions recovery of $2,873.30.

Conclusion

I.

Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc.’s Motion for Order That Matters Be Deemed Admitted as Against Defendant, Addition Building & Design, Inc., and Request for Monetary Sanctions of $2,061.65 [CRS# 8366] is GRANTED.

Requests for Admission, Set Three, are DEEMED ADMITTED against Defendant Addition Building & Design, Inc. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

Defendant Addition Building & Design, Inc. is ORDERED to remit payment of the above sanctions within 30 days of this order.

II.

Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc.’s Motion for Order That Matters Be Deemed Admitted as Against Defendant, Michael Ross aka Michael Edward Ross dba Green Build Design LA, and Request for Monetary Sanctions of $811.65 [CRS# 8979] is GRANTED.

Requests for Admission, Set Three, are DEEMED ADMITTED against Michael Ross aka Michael Edward Ross dba Green Build Design LA. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

Defendant Michael Ross aka Michael Edward Ross dba Green Build Design LA is ORDERED to remit payment of the above sanctions within 30 days of this order.