Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 19STCV24133, Date: 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling
All parties are
urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to
see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If
you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in
advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather
than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be
advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the
hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the
matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in
the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.
If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT
WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to
argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of
your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request
the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the
hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 19STCV24133 Hearing Date: April 17, 2023 Dept: 28
Plaintiff Valerie Brugueras’s Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admissions (Set One)
Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On July 11, 2019, Plaintiff Valerie Brugueras (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Wilfredo Vega (“Vega”) and ADT Security Services, Inc. (“ADT SS”) for negligence. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendant ADT LLC (“ADT”).
On May 14, 2021, Vega filed an answer. On September 24, 2021, ADT SS was dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request. On February 14, 2022, ADT filed an answer.
On March 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted, set to be heard on April 17, 2023. On March 29, 2023, Defendants filed an opposition. On April 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for July 3, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff requests the Court order Request for Admissions, Set One, against Vega be deemed admitted. Plaintiff requests the Court impose $1,060.00 in sanctions.
Vega requests the Court deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under CCP § 2033.280:
“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
(a) 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). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.
(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
(b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).
(c) The court shall make this order, 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. 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.”
DISCUSSION
Request for Discovery
Plaintiff propounded Request for Admissions, Set One, on Vega on November 28, 2022. Responses were due on December 30, 2022. Defendant provided unverified responses on December 27, 2022, consisting of both responses and objections.
Defendants claim they inadvertently omitted the signatures or verifications of Defendants. They also state they were not aware of the lack of verifications until the filing of this motion, alleging they never received Plaintiff’s alleged voicemail about the subject. Since then, Vega has served verified responses.
Given that Vega served code-compliant, verified responses prior to the hearing that matched the previous responses, inadvertently served without verification, the Court finds these responses are sufficient. The Court denies the motion as to the request to deem the admissions admitted.
Sanctions
However, there are still grounds for sanctions under CCP §2033.280(c), as Vega failed to serve timely verifications, necessitating this motion. Plaintiff requests sanctions totaling $1,060.00, based on 1 $60.00 filling fee and “for the which equals $1,000.00.” (Nemanpour Decl. ¶ 7.) The Court awards sanctions totaling $660.00, based on 3 hours of attorney’s work at a reasonable rate of $200.00 per hour and 1 $60.00 filling fee.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff Valerie Brugueras’s Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admissions (Set One) is DENIED.
Plaintiff Valerie Brugueras’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Vega and Vega’s counsel are ordered to pay Plaintiff $660.00 in sanctions within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.
The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.