Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 19STCV42571, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV42571    Hearing Date: January 26, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Elizabeth A. Hodgson (“Plaintiff”) propounded request for admissions (“RFAs”), set one, on defendant Pacific Protection on January 24, 2022, and on defendant Michael Carr (“Carr”) on March 11, 2022.  To date, despite an extension of time to respond and attempts to meet and confer, neither Pacific Protection nor Carr has served responses to the RFAs served on them.  Plaintiff therefore seeks an order deeming the RFAs admitted against each Pacific Protect and Carr and imposing sanctions against them.

Plaintiff’s motions are unopposed and granted.  The RFAs served on each Pacific Protection and Carr are deemed admitted against them.  (CCP §2033.280(b).)

Sanctions are mandatory.  (CCP § 2033.280(c).)  Plaintiff is awarded one hour for preparing the motion and one hour to appear at the hearing all at the reasonable rate of $200 per hour, for a total of $400.00 in attorney fees.  Further, Plaintiff is awarded the motion filing fee of $60 as costs. 

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendants and Defendants’ attorney of record.  Plaintiff does not describe any conduct warranting sanctions against either Pacific Protection or Carr directly.  Sanctions are imposed against Defendants’ attorney of record only.  Defendants’ counsel is ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $460, within twenty days.

            As a final note, the Court realizes that Plaintiff’s motion to deem RFAs admitted against Pacific Protection and Carr is actually two motions combined into one: (a) motion to deem RFAs, set one, admitted against Pacific Protection and (b) motion to deem RFAs, set one, admitted against Carr.  In the future, moving party is ordered to obtain separate hearing reservations and pay separate filing fees.  Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants.  Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect.

Be that as it may, in the absence of any objection by Defendants and lack of any showing of prejudice, the Court will exercise its discretion to hear the motions, but the above orders will not become effective until moving party pays an additional $60 in filing fees (1 motion filing fees not paid for x $60 filing fee). 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 26^th day of January 2023