Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV00725, Date: 2023-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00725    Hearing Date: October 11, 2023    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’ MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE AS ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFF RICKY LEE PINZON is GRANTED.

Background

This is a personal injury case. Plaintiff Ricky Lee Pinzon (pro per) alleges that he was riding his bicycle when he was struck by a sheriff’s vehicle.

On March 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed suit. The complaint, which is on a pleading form, is somewhat illegible, though it appears Plaintiff filed suit against the Secretary of State of California, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, two deputies, and Doe defendants.

On June 21, 2023, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (erroneously sued as The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department) (“Defendant”) filed its Answer.[1]

On June 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed various declarations.

On July 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendant’s answer.

On July 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Offer To Compromise Under Code Of Civil Procedure Section 998 indicating a judgment/offer of five million dollars.

On August 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed two writs (Writ of Abusive Tactics Employed by Defendants' Lawyers of Record and

On August 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a subpoena.

On August 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default against Dr. Shirley N. Webber, which was denied.

On August 10, 2023, the court issued the following minute order: The Court has read and considered the Informal Discovery Conference pursuant to the Discovery Resolution Stipulation of the parties electronically received by the Plaintiff on July 17, 2023. In light of the above and by Order of the Court, the matter is set for an Informal Discovery Conference as follows: Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) is scheduled for 09/01/2023 at 10:30 AM in Department O at Pomona Courthouse South.

On August 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice Defendant's failure to file a timely case management case statement.

On August 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default against the Secretary of State and Defendant, which was denied.

On September 12, 2023, filed the instant RFA motion.

On October 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a ‘Declaration.’[2] That same day, Defendant filed a Reply.

On October 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed an application for guardian ad litem.

Legal Standard

RFAs are different from other civil discovery tools such as depositions, interrogatories, and requests for documents because while most of the other discovery procedure primarily assist counsel prepare for trial, RFAs are aimed at “setting at rest a triable issue so that it will not have to be tried.” (St. Mary v. Superior Ct. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 774, 775, quoting Cembrook v. Superior Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429.)

C.C.P. section 2033.280 then provides that 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

Defendant seeks an order deeming matters served in the Request for Admission (RFA), Set one, as admitted by Plaintiff, which was propounded upon Plaintiff on June 21, 2023 with a response on or before July 26, 2023.

The RFA seeks admission of the following:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:

Please admit that COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES was not negligent in any way towards you.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2:

Please admit that no action or inaction on the part of COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, represented a substantial factor in any injuries which you are claiming in this matter.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3:

Please admit that you have no facts to support your cause of action for “Motor Vehicle” set forth in your Complaint.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Please admit that you have no facts to support your cause of action for “Emergency Vehicle vs. Ped” set forth in your Complaint.

(Motion p. 5, see also Ex. A, pp. 11-12 of 31 of PDF, emphasis and underline added.)

Despite service of the RFA via mail on June 21, 2023 (See POS p. 13 of 31), despite an electronic courtesy copy sent on July 26, 2023 (Ex. B), despite a courtesy notification on July 12, 2023 that responses were soon due, and despite a voluntary meet and confer effort on July 31, 2023, Plaintiff has not responded to the RFAs. Rather, on July 12, 2023, Plaintiff responded to Defense Counsel via email with “Plaintiffs Despondent Decree Responsive to Defendants Discovery for Evidence,” which despite its incomprehensibility, clearly indicates it does not answer the RFAs. And to the extent that Plaintiff has attempted to file an opposition (entitled ‘Declaration’) that again does not answer the RFAs. And to the extent that Plaintiff may state he served responses, his own 10/03 declaration undermines a showing of timely responses as it is dated 10/03/2023, but responses were due July 2023. And even if his responses were timely, they do not respond to the RFA as Plaintiff objects on irrelevant grounds such as hearsay, “not verified by client,” and citation to Evidence Code section 352.

As noted by Defendant, Plaintiff has elected to represent himself in this instant action. It is well established that a litigant appearing in propria persona is entitled to the same consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (County of Orange v. Smith (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1444.) Plaintiff’s decision to not respond to RFAs, which admits no fault on part of Defendant, nullifies Plaintiff’s entire action.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted.