Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV09504, Date: 2024-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09504    Hearing Date: February 20, 2024    Dept: 14

Case Background

            Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have been renovating the home next to his, in preparation for a sale. Plaintiff complains that the renovations have created a nuisance. He also alleges that one of the employees blocked his driveway with a sanitation truck and assaulted Plaintiff when he asked that the truck be moved.

Complaint

On September 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) Private Nuisance, (2) Public Nuisance, (3) Trespass, (4) Trespass to Chattels, (5) Assault, (6) Negligence, (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”), (8) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (“NIED”), (9) Intrusion into Private Affairs, and (10) False Imprisonment against Defendants Jacob Rabbanian (“Rabbanian”); TOV Equities, LLC (“TOV”); Curson Home, LLC (“Curson”); Diamond Environmental Services, LP; Diamond Solid Waste Services, Inc. (collectively “Diamond”); and DOES 1-50.

On October 19, 2022, Defendant TOV filed its Answer.

On October 20, 2022, Defendants Rabbanian and Curson filed their joint Answer.

Also on October 20, 2022, Defendants Diamond filed their joint Answer.

Cross-Complaint

On June 15, 2022, Defendants Rabbanian, TOV, and Curson filed their Cross-Complaint for (1) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; (2) Slander of Title; (3) Injunction; (4) Equitable Indemnity; (5) Contribution; (6) Apportionment; (7) Declaratory Relief; and (8) Malicious Prosecution against Plaintiff and Cross-Defendants Diamond and ROES 1-75.

On August 1, 2022, Cross-Defendants Diamond filed their joint Answer.

On October 24, 2022, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant filed his Answer.

On September 15, 2022, this court partially granted Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s Special Motion to Strike the Cross-Complaint, removing the eighth cause of action and any references to the Complaint’s request for injunctive relief. On November 29, 2022, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant appealed this court’s denial of the motion as to the other causes of action. That appeal is currently pending.

Trial Date

Jury Trial is currently set for March 4, 2024.

Instant Motion

Plaintiff now moves this court for an order deeming the Requests for Admissions, Set No. Two (“RFAs”) served on Defendant Diamond Environmental Services, LP as admitted by that party.

Decision

The motion is DENIED.

Governing Statute

            Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280 provides as follows:

“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

On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff served the RFAs. Responses were due on November 21, 2023. No responses were served until January 17, 2024. The responses contain boilerplate objections, punctuated in every case by the following sentence:

“Responding Party has made a reasonable inquiry regarding this matter, but currently has insufficient information to admit or deny this request.” (Plaintiff’s Exhibit B).

This motion was filed afterward, on January 23, 2024.

Plaintiff complains that the responses he got are boilerplate and lack credibility. However, once a party has served verified responses to Requests for Admissions, the requesting party may no longer file a motion to deem the requests admitted under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280. The proper motion to file here would have been a motion to compel further responses under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.290.

Conclusion

            Once a party serves verified responses to Requests for Admissions, any challenge to those responses must be made by way of a motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.290. Defendant served verified responses. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot subsequently seek to have the requests deemed admitted. The motion is DENIED.