Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV27238, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV27238    Hearing Date: September 12, 2023    Dept: 74

Cory Harris v. Javanshir Rad, et al.

Defendant Javanshir Rad’s Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission (Set One) and Request for Sanctions Against Plaintiff Cory Harris

TENTATIVE RULING

            The court grants this motion because Plaintiff Cory Harris failed to timely respond to Defendant Javanshir Rad’s request for admission (set one). Moreover, sanctions are necessary under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a dispute between a landlord and a tenant.

            On July 26, 2021, Plaintiff Cory Harris (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Javanshir Rad (Defendant).

            On November 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.

            On January 24, 2022, Plaintiff field a second amended complaint (SAC).

            On January 30, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with discovery, including the requests for admission (RFAs) at issue. Plaintiff never provided responses to the RFAs.

            On March 16, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to deem the RFAs admitted and request for sanctions.

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

            The court will grant this motion because Plaintiff has failed to timely respond to the RFAs at issue. In addition, sanctions are mandatory. The court finds Defendant’s counsel proposed hourly rate reasonable and notes she has substantiated her request with a breakdown of work performed ($810 = ($300 x (1.5 hours (preparation of motion) + 1 hour (preparation for appearance and appearance)) + $60 (filing fee)). (Rad-Stein Decl., ¶ 5.)

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Defendant’s motion to deem the RFAs admitted. The court orders sanctions against Plaintiff in the sum of $810 payable to Defendant by October 12, 2023.

  Defendant is ordered to give notice.