Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV23573, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23573    Hearing Date: April 16, 2024    Dept: 74

Julian Perner Ledesma v. Arash Moradzadeh, et al.

Defendant’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission (Sets One and Two) Admitted and Request for Sanctions

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND 

            On June 24, 2021, Plaintiff Julian Perner Ledesma (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant K & B Surgical Center (Defendant) and others.

            On April 12, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff with requests for admission (set one) (RFAs).

            On July 10, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with RFAs (set two).

            Plaintiff responded to both sets of RFAs, but Defendant contends the responses remain unverified.

            On March 12, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to deem both sets of RFAs admitted.

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).) Further, 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).) ¿

            While tardy responses may defeat the motion, they will not avoid monetary sanctions. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c) [“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction [Citation] on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”].) 

DISCUSSION 

            This motion is moot because Plaintiff provided verifications to the RFAs on October 7, 2023. (Matevosyan Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. 1.) However, service of verifications was untimely, meaning Plaintiff did not timely respond to the RFAs. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [“Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.”].) As a further consequence, sanctions are mandatory. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Defendant’s counsel’s proposed hourly rate is reasonable, but the court finds the hours for which she seeks compensation excessive. (Milnes Decl., ¶ 8.) Accordingly, the court will award Defendant’s counsel $2,400 ($400 x (3 hours (motion) + 3 hours (drafting reply, preparing for hearing, attending hearing).

CONCLUSION 

The court finds this motion moot. The court grants Defendant’s request for sanctions. Plaintiff shall pay Defendant’s counsel attorney fees in the sum of $2,400 within 30 days of this order.

Defendant shall give notice.