Judge: Audra Mori, Case: BC692591, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC692591    Hearing Date: January 19, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Owoimaha Umoh (“Plaintiff”) propounded request for admissions (“RFAs”), set one, on Defendant Ofir Alon Faktor (“Defendant”) on July 1, 2020.  Plaintiff asserts that as of the filing of this motion on July 29, 2022, and despite attempts to meet and confer, Defendant had not served verified responses.  Plaintiff therefore seeks an order deeming the RFAs admitted and imposing sanctions.

            On January 5, 2023, Defendant filed an opposition to the motion to deem RFAs admitted contending that the motion is moot and untimely.  Defendant asserts that Defendant provided responses to the discovery nearly two years before Plaintiff’s motion was filed on July 21, 2020, and that Defendant served verifications for the discovery on September 18, 2020.  Defendant asserts that responses were electronically served on Plaintiff.  Further, Defendant contends that fact discovery closed in this matter on August 1, 2022, which means that the last day for Plaintiff’s motion to be heard was August 16, 2022.

As of January 17, 2023, no reply has been filed.  The Court finds that the motion to deem RFAs admitted is moot in light of the responses served on Plaintiff prior to the hearing and prior to the motion being filed.  (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776.)  Furthermore, trial in this matter was previously set for August 31, 2022.  On August 17, 2022, after the discovery and discovery motion cutoffs had passed, the August 31, 2022 trial date was continued to September 30, 2022.  However, only open deadlines were to move with the trial date.  (Min. Order, Aug. 17, 2022.)  Thereafter, the trial date was continued multiple times, but the continuances did not provide that any closed deadlines were to be reopened.  (Min. Orders, Sept. 16, 2022 and Oct. 17, 2022.)  Most recently, on November 14, 2022, the trial date was continued to March 8, 2023, and by agreement of the parties, only expert discovery was continued based on the new trial date.  (Min. Order, Nov. 14, 2022.)  Therefore, discovery is closed in this action and the motion cutoff date has now passed.  (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1586 [A party who notices a discovery motion to be heard after the discovery motion cutoff date does not have a right to have the motion heard.].) 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. 

Sanctions are mandatory.  (CCP §§ 2033.280(c).)  As the motion was not warranted in light of the fact that responses had been served, Defendant is awarded one hour for preparing the opposition and one hour to appear at the hearing all at the reasonable rate of $200 per hour, for a total of $400 in attorney fees.  Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of record.  Defendant does not describe any conduct warranting sanctions against Plaintiff personally.  Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff’s attorney of record only.  Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $400, within twenty days.

Defendant 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 19^th day of January 2023