Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20STCV49213, Date: 2024-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV49213    Hearing Date: August 9, 2024    Dept: 74

Brandon Charif v. Fuelster Technologies, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Establishing Admissions and Request for Sanctions

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract and fraud action arising out of a referral/commission relationship in the mobile fueling business.

On September 6, 2023, Plaintiff  Brandon Charif (“Plaintiff”) served his Requests for Admissions, Set Two, on Defendant Fuelster Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant”).  (Rozio Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. “A.”)  The deadline for Defendant to respond to the set of requests for admissions was October 6, 2023.  Defendant neither requested an extension for time to respond nor served responses. (Rozio Decl., ¶ 4-5.) On June 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed his motion requesting an order establishing admissions by Defendant and sanctions of $1,060 against Defendant and its former counsel, David Martin Gonor (“Gonor”).  Gonor opposes the request for sanctions against him.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party may move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION 

            Defendant failed to serve responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set Two. (Rozio Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.)  Therefore, the requests are deemed admitted.

            Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions against Defendant and its former counsel in the amount of $1,060 (2 hours incurred at $500 hourly rate, plus $60 filing fee).  (Rozio Decl., ¶¶ 6-8.)  The Court grants the request for sanctions only against Defendant. Additionally, the Court reduces the sanctions awarded because this motion is one of a series of motions to compel for which Plaintiff’s counsel appropriately duplicated his work.

CONCLUSION 

                The Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Establishing Admissions by Defendant Fuelster Technologies, Inc. The Court orders the matters in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set Two to Defendant deemed admitted.  The Court orders sanctions of $560 payable by Defendant within 20 days of this order.

            Plaintiff shall give notice.