Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 21STCV39394, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV39394    Hearing Date: May 15, 2023    Dept: 28

Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions

Having considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On October 26, 2021, Plaintiff Mariah Sierra (“Mariah”) filed a complaint against Defendants Garrett Martin Shaw, EAN Holdings LLC, and Rachel Connie De Lara, alleging wrongful death, general negligence/survivor, and negligent entrustment arising from an automobile collision that occurred on November 17, 2019.

On November 5, 2021, Plaintiffs Timothy De Lara, Amanda De Lara, Shante Trejo, and Julian De Lara (collectively, “Moving Parties”) filed a complaint against Garret Shaw, EAN Holdings, LLC, Enterprise Holdings, Inc., and Enterprise Holdings, LLC, alleging negligence (wrongful death) in connection with the same November 17, 2019 automobile collision.

On May 16, 2023, Plaintiff Sara Sierra filed a complaint against Defendant Garret Martin Shaw and Estate of Rachel Connie De Lara, alleging a cause of action for negligence (wrongful death and survival) in connection with the same November 17, 2019 automobile collision.

On March 29, 2023, Moving Parties filed the instant Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions and Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Form Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions against Plaintiff Mariah Sierra. Plaintiff opposed the motions and Moving Parties have replied. The Court continued the hearing on the motions to May 15, 2023.

Trial is set for August 30, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Moving Parties ask the Court to deem the truth of the matters specified in requests for admission admitted, namely Plaintiff Timothy De Lara’s Requests for Admission, Set One to Plaintiff Mariah Sierra, Request Nos. 1 through 23, inclusive; Plaintiff Amanda De Lara’s Requests for Admission, Set One to Plaintiff Mariah Sierra, Request Nos. 1 through 23, inclusive; Plaintiff Shante Trejo’s Requests for Admission, Set One to Plaintiff Mariah

Sierra, Request Nos. 1 through 23, inclusive; and Plaintiff Julian De Lara’s, by and through his guardian ad litem Victor De Lara, Requests for Admission, Set One to Plaintiff Mariah Sierra, Request Nos. 1 through 23, inclusive. Moving Parties also ask the Court to award them $2,810.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Mariah Sierra and her attorneys Shahin Shawn Karimian and Karimian Law Group, jointly and severally.

Moving Parties also ask the Court for an order compelling Plaintiff Mariah Sierra to respond, without objection, to Plaintiff Timothy De Lara’s Form Interrogatories, Set One to Plaintiff Mariah Sierra, Interrogatory Nos. 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, and 17.1; Plaintiff Amanda De Lara’s Form Interrogatories, Set One to Plaintiff Mariah Sierra, Interrogatory Nos. 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, and 17.1; Plaintiff Shante Trejo’s Form Interrogatories, Set One to Plaintiff Mariah Sierra, Request Interrogatory Nos. 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, and 17.1; and Plaintiff Julian De Lara’s, by and through his guardian ad litem Victor De Lara,

Form Interrogatories, Set One to Plaintiff Mariah Sierra, Interrogatory Nos. 1.1,

2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, and 17.1. Moving Parties also ask the Court to award them $2,060.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Mariah Sierra and her attorneys Shahin Shawn Karimian and Karimian Law Group, jointly and severally.

LEGAL STANDARD

When a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to respond, the party propounding the requests may move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (CCP § 2033.280(b).) “The court shall make this order [to deem the requests admitted], unless it finds that the party to whom the request for admissions 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… on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (CCP § 2033.280(c).)

When a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond, under CCP § 2030.290(b), the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (CCP § 2030.290(a).) “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Id. § 2030.300(d).)

DISCUSSION

Requests for Admission

On December 8, 2022, Moving Parties served Requests for Admission, Set One (one each per Moving Party) on Plaintiff Mariah Sierra. (Ounjian Decl., ¶ 3, Exs. 1, 2, 3, 4.) Mariah had failed to timely respond before the filing of this motion. (See Ounjian Decl., ¶7.) On April 26, 2023, filed an opposition to the motion indicating that she had provided verified responses to the Moving Parties’ requests for admission. (Karimian Decl., Exs. A, B.) However, the responses attached to Karimian’s declaration are not verified as the verification is unsigned. (Karimian Decl., Exs. A, B.) Accordingly, Mariah still has not provided any responses to the Moving Parties’ requests for admission. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-636 [“Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.”])

While the Court finds that Moving Parties are otherwise entitled to an order deeming the truth of the matters specified in their requests for admission admitted, the Court notes that the Moving Parties have combined four sets of requests for admission into one motion but paid only one filing fee, which is improper. Moving Parties should have brought a separate motion for each set of requests for admission and paid a separate filing fee for each. The Court will grant the motion to deem the truth of the matters specified in requests for admission admitted on the condition that Moving Parties pay the three remaining motion filing fees for the other requests for admission. Otherwise, the Court will only grant the motion as to Plaintiff Timothy De Lara’s Requests for Admission, Set One, served on Plaintiff Mariah Sierra on December 28, 2022, and Moving Parties will have to reschedule and refile their motions on the remaining requests for admission.

As for monetary sanctions, since they are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem requests for admission admitted, the Court finds that Moving Parties are entitled to monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,060.00, comprised of 1.5 hours preparing the motion and 0.5 hours for appearing at the hearing on the motion, for a for a total of 2.0 hours, multiplied by the hourly rate of $500.00, plus the $60.00 filing fee.

Form Interrogatories

The analysis for Moving Parties’ motion to compel responses to their form interrogatories is virtually the same as above. Moving Parties served four sets of form interrogatories on Mariah on December 28, 2022 and failed to timely respond before the filing of this motion. (See Ounjian Decl., ¶7.) The responses Mariah provided on April 26, 2023 are not verified. (Karimian Decl., Exs. A, B.) Accordingly, Mariah still has not provided responses to Moving Parties’ form interrogatories. (Appleton, supra,206 Cal.App.3d at pp. 635-636.)

These motions also have the same issue of including four sets of form interrogatories but only one filing fee was paid. Again, Moving Parties should have brought four separate motions for each set of form interrogatories and paid a separate filing fee for each. The Court will grant the compel responses to the form interrogatories on the condition that Moving Parties pay the three remaining motion filing fees for the other requests for admission. Otherwise, the Court will only grant the motion as to Plaintiff Timothy De Lara’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, served on Plaintiff Mariah Sierra on December 28, 2022, , and Moving Parties will have to reschedule and refile their motions on the remaining form interrogatories.

As for monetary sanctions, the Court declines to impose sanctions based on Moving Parties’ failure to pay all of the necessary filing fees.

CONCLUSION

Moving Parties’ motion to deem the truth of the matters specified in requests for admissions is GRANTED on the condition that Moving Parties pay the three remaining filing fees; otherwise, the motion is granted only as to Plaintiff Timothy De Lara’s Requests for Admission, Set One, served on Plaintiff Mariah Sierra on December 28, 2022, and Moving Parties will have to reschedule and refile their motions on the remaining requests for admission.

The Court GRANTS Moving Parties’ request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Mariah Sierra Plaintiff Mariah Sierra and her attorneys Shahin Shawn Karimian and Karimian Law Group in connection with the requests for admission in the reduced amount of $1,060.00. Mariah or her counsel must pay such sanctions to Moving Parties’ counsel within 20 days of the date of this order.

Moving Parties’ motion to compel responses to form interrogatories is GRANTED on the condition that Moving Parties pay the three remaining filing fees; otherwise, the motion is granted only as to Plaintiff Timothy De Lara’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, served on Plaintiff Mariah Sierra on December 28, 2022, and Moving Parties will have to reschedule and refile their motions on the remaining form interrogatories.

The Court DENIES Moving Parties’ request for monetary sanctions in connection with the motion to compel responses to form interrogatories.

Moving Parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling and file a proof of service of same within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.