Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV11802, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11802    Hearing Date: March 18, 2024    Dept: 74

Colin H. Chan v. BMW of North America, LLC, et al.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission (Set One) Admitted and Request for Sanctions

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was timely filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b) [“All papers opposing a motion . . . shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days . . . before the hearing.”].)

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a defective 2019 BMW 1250RT.

            On April 7, 2022, Plaintiff Colin H. Chan (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant BMW of North America, LLC (Defendant) and Long Beach BMW Motorcycles. The complaint alleges breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and negligent repair.

            On November 18, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant with requests for admission (RFAs).

            Defendant responded with objections.

            On January 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to deem admitted the RFAs 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 denies this motion because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendant failed to timely respond to the RFAs. Rather, Plaintiff acknowledges that after he served the RFAs, Defendant responded with objections. (Motion, p. 1:4-7; Mellgren Decl., ¶ 7; Ex. B, p. 3.) An objection to a RFA is a response. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.210, subd. (b), 2033.230, subd. (b).) Moreover, Plaintiff does not include Defendant’s objections with his motion. Consequently, the court cannot assess whether Defendant’s objections were timely, verified, and Code-compliant.

CONCLUSION 

The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to deem the RFAs admitted and request for sanctions.

Plaintiff shall give notice.