Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 22STCP01714, Date: 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP01714    Hearing Date: April 4, 2023    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Beemer vs. Penta Building Group, et. al., Case No. 22STCP01714

Tentative Ruling re:  Respondent’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted

Respondent The Penta Building Group (Penta) moves for an order deeming the Requests for Admissions (Set One) issued to Appellant Timothy Beemer (Beemer) admitted. The unopposed motion is granted.

A motion to deem admitted requests for admissions lies based upon a showing of failure to respond timely. (Code Civ. Proc., §2033.280, subd. (b); Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395 [disapproved on other grounds by Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983].) Requests for admissions must be deemed admitted where no responses in substantial compliance were served before the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., §2033.280, subd. (c).)

            A court will deem requests admitted, “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 Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) “It 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).)

            The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

Penta served the Requests for Admissions (Set One) on Beemer on December 21, 2022, by both mail and email. (Onyeama Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Responses were due by January 25, 2023. Beemer did not respond by that date. Penta’s counsel contacted Beemer on January 25, 2023, regarding the responses, and Beemer replied that he had not received Penta’s email serving the RFAs. (Onyeama Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. D.) Penta’s counsel emailed Beemer another copy of the RFAs, but Beemer had still not provided responses as of the date this motion was filed. (Onyeama Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. E.) Beemer has not opposed this motion, and there is no evidence that he has served responses prior to the hearing on this motion. Accordingly, Penta’s Requests for Admissions (Set One) are deemed admitted.

“It 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).)

Monetary sanctions against Beemer are mandatory, as his failure to serve a timely response to the RFAs necessitated this motion. Penta requests sanctions in the amount of $6,711, based on an hourly rate of $480 for counsel Ariella Onyeama, for 5.2 hours to prepare this motion, 4 hours anticipated to review the opposition and prepare a reply, and 2 hours to prepare for and attend the hearing; plus, 1 hour and 0.5 anticipated hours by counsel Nicole Kamm at an hourly rate of $570; plus, a $60 filing fee. (Onyeama Decl. ¶¶ 10-17.)

This simple and straightforward motion should not have required more that five (5) hours total to prepare and serve the motion and attend the hearing.  Accordingly, the Court orders Petitioner to pay $2,460 to Respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of today’s date.