Case Number: 21STCV13617    Hearing Date: April 12, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

MOVING PARTY:              Defendant Bargain Rent-a-Car.

OPPOSITION:                      Plaintiff Javier Alarcon Munoz.

REPLY:                                 Defendant Bargain Rent-a-Car.

Background

Plaintiff Javier Alarcon Munoz sues Defendants Juvenal Alejandro Farias, Bargain Rent-a-Car, and Does 1-50 pursuant to claims of (1) Revocation of Acceptance of Goods, (2) Rescission, (3) Breach of Oral Contract, (4) Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract, (5) Breach of Written Contract, (6) Fraud, (7) Violations of Consumer Legal Remedies Act, (8) Violation of Unfair Business Practices Act/Unfair Competition, (9) Violation of Penal Code Section 496, (10) Common Counts (Money Had and Received), and (11) Breach of Fiduciary Duty. The claims are premised on allegations that, inter alia, Plaintiff purchased a vehicle represented by Defendant Farias to be a 2015 Lexus model number “RC F” and that Farias represented to Plaintiff that the vehicle had “[n]o issues, no problems,” only for Plaintiff to later discovery that the vehicle was salvage-titled, carried an invalid VIN number, was not marketable, and may have had other problems.

On October 28, 2022, Defendant Bargain Rent-a-Car (“Lexus of Cerritos”) made a motion to compel further verified responses from Plaintiff related to Lexus of Cerritos’s Request for Admissions, Set One, Request Nos. 3, 7-9, and 21-22.

On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff opposed the October 28th motion.

On April 5, 2023, Lexus of Cerritos replied to the March 28th opposition.

The October 2022 motion is now before the Court.

Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiff’s Opposition Objections

Objections No. 1-3: OVERRULED.

Motion to Compel Further Admissions Responses: GRANTED, in Part.

Legal Standard

A motion to compel a further response is used when a party gives unsatisfactory answers or makes untenable objections to interrogatories, demands to produce, or requests for admission. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a), 2031.310, subd. (a), 2033.290, subd. (a).) To obtain further responses to requests for admission, the movant must establish that (1) the response to an RFA is evasive or incomplete (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a)(1)) or (2) the objection to an RFA is without merit or too general (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a)(2).)

Analysis

Defendant Lexus of Cerritos moves for an order compelling further responses to Request for Admissions, Set One, Request Nos. 3, 7-9, and 21-22 served on Plaintiff Alarcon Munoz, and sanctions in the amount of $2,659.24 against Plaintiff and his attorney of record, jointly and severally. (See Mot., 2:1-8, 5:12-9:8.)

Lexus of Cerritos seeks further responses on the grounds that, inter alia, (1) Plaintiff’s responses to these RFAs were entirely evasive, deficient, or frivolous insofar as they raised general objections that the requests for admission at issue (a) were vague and ambiguous, (b) called for a legal conclusion, (c) sought information protected by attorney-client and work product privileges, (d) sought private information, and/or (e) were overbroad, and (2) the RFAs permissibly sought opinions relating to fact, or application of law to fact. (See Mot., 5:12-9:8.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that (1) the motion is defective for failure to identify the RFAs at issue as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subdivision (b) and failure to comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1112 related to the contents of a motion (Opp’n, 2:8-3:5) and (2) the RFA responses are substantially code compliant (Opp’n, 3:6-6;19). Plaintiff disputes the sanctions requested by Lexus of Cerritos and requests sanctions of his own against Lexus of Cerritos. (Opp’n, 6:20-8:20.)

In reply, Lexus of Cerritos argues that (1) its motion is procedurally sound and (2) Munoz must give further responses as to Request for Admissions, Set One, Request Nos. 3, 7-9, and 21-22 because, inter alia, these responses are necessary to determine which defendant is being sued for what conduct, where the responses here to date provided by Plaintiff failed to provide full and complete responses to the admission requests. (Reply, 3:26-8:20.)

The Court finds that the motion is procedurally sound, reasonably identifying the RFA requests at issue to a degree that permitted Plaintiff to oppose on the merits. (See, e.g., Mot., 5:12-9:8.)

The Court finds that further responses are merited as to RFA No. 3. The RFA requests an admission that the subject vehicle was purchased from Defendant Farias, and Plaintiff simply responds that this request is vague and ambiguous (without explaining how) and that Farias “delivered” the subject vehicle to Plaintiff without any admission as to whether the vehicle was in fact purchased from Farias or not. (Mot., Abramson Decl., Ex. 2, p. 3.) Plaintiff should provide a further response to RFA No. 3.

The Court also finds that further responses are merited as to RFA No. 9 but not RFA Nos. 7-8. The RFAs request admissions that Plaintiff did not tender any monies to Lexus of Cerritos, that Lexus of Cerritos did not receive any monies from Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff and Lexus of Cerritos did not enter a contract for the purchase of the subject vehicle. (Mot., Abramson Decl., Ex. 2, pp. 5-6.) The responses to RFA Nos. 7 and 8 are adequate because they provide that Plaintiff paid $332 to Lexus of Cerritos. (Mot., Abramson Decl., Ex. 2, pp. 5-6.) The response to RFA No. 9, however, is inadequate because it provides boilerplate objections and a threadbare response indicating Plaintiff “has made a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request and the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable [Plaintiff] to admit or deny the matter,” a contention that is evasive and insufficient where Plaintiff should know whether he entered into a contract only with Defendant Farias and/or Lexus of Cerritos. (See Mot., Abramson Decl., Ex. 2, p. 6; see also Fourth Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 39-47 [alleging an oral contract with Lexus of Cerritos].)

The Court finds that further responses as to RFA Nos. 21-22 are merited. Request Nos. 21 and 22 ask Plaintiff to admit that he never asked Lexus of Cerritos to check the status of the subject vehicle’s certificate of title and that Lexus of Cerritos never agreed to check the status of the certificate of title. (Mot., Abramson Decl., Ex. 2, pp. 11-12.) The responses to these admission requests involve boilerplate objections and the assertion that Plaintiff “has made a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request and the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable [Plaintiff] to admit or deny the matter.” (Mot., Abramson Decl., Ex. 2, pp. 11-12.) The Court finds such responses contain unmeritorious objections and a response that is wholly evasive and insufficient because Plaintiff should, more than any other party, have within its possession the knowledge and ability to determine whether he asked and Lexus of Cerritos agreed to check the certificate of title on the subject vehicle.

Defendant Lexus of Cerritos’s motion is thus GRANTED, in Part, only as to Requests for Admission, Set One, RFA Nos. 3, 9, and 21-22.

Request for Sanctions

The Court must impose monetary sanctions against anyone (party, non-party, or attorney) who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses to requests for admission, unless it finds that the person to be sanctioned acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (d).)

The Court further finds that because both parties were substantially justified in bringing or opposing this motion, no sanctions are merited. (See Analysis supra [insufficient admissions as to four requests, but sufficient admissions as to two requests].)

Conclusion

Defendant Bargain Rent-a-Car’s Motion to Compel Further Verified Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One and Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED, in Part, as to Request Nos. 3, 9, and 21-22 because Plaintiff’s responses to these admission requests were wholly evasive and insufficient for the purposes of discovery.

The parties’ cross-requests for sanctions are DENIED because the parties were substantially justified in bringing and opposing this motion.