Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20STCV40604, Date: 2024-12-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV40604    Hearing Date: December 3, 2024    Dept: 74

Sermeno v. Law Offices of Ramin R. Younessi et al.

Defendant Amir Pasha Vafaei’s Motion to Deem Admitted

BACKGROUND 

            This case arises from a workplace harassment and discrimination claim.

            Plaintiff Laura Sermeno (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Law Offices of Ramin R. Younessi and Amir Pasha Vafaei (Defendant) (collectively Defendants).

            The case was stayed on October 6, 2023, pending an appeal.

            On October 3, 2024, the stay was lifted.

            On October 31, 2024, defendant Vafaei filed a motion to deem admitted Plaintiff’s Request for Admission, Set One.

LEGAL STANDARD

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . . (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).”¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)¿The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission 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.”¿¿(Id., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)¿ A responding party may respond by answering or objecting to a request for admission. (Id., § 2033.210, subd. (b).)¿ An answer either admits, denies or claims inability to admit or deny. (Id., § 2033.220, subd. (b).). Responses are due within 30 days from the date the request for admission was served. (Id., § 2033.250.) ¿¿¿¿ 

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff served unverified responses on October 5, 2023.  The case was stayed three day later on October 6, 2023. Almost a year later on October 3, 2024, the stay was lifted. On October 31, 2024, Defendant filed this motion.  Defendant did not attempt to meet and confer about the missing verifications after the stay was lifted.  (Iarusso Decl., ¶ 7; Vance Decl., ¶ 8-9.) Plaintiff nonetheless served verifications on November 6, 2024, making Defendant’s motion moot.  (Iarusso Decl., ¶ 8.)

But the issue of sanctions remains. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.) The court finds in this case that Defendant’s failure to meet and confer in a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute after the stay was listed but before filing this motion precludes Defendant’s recovery of sanctions. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(i).) 

CONCLUSION                                         

The Court finds Defendant’s motion to deem matters admitted moot.

The court denies sanctions against either party.