Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV30936, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30936    Hearing Date: September 6, 2023    Dept: 74

Wendy Araorellana, et al. v. Hector Henriquez, et al.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission and Request for Sanctions Against Defendant Tomoko Henriquez

TENTATIVE RULING

            Given Defendant Tomoko Henriquez’s untimely responses to the requests for admission, the court finds this motion moot. But sanctions are mandatory under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a landlord tenant dispute.

            On September 21, 2022, Plaintiffs Wendy Araorellana and Benson Louie (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Defendant Tomoko Henriquez (Defendant) and others. In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege negligence, breach of implied warranty of habitability, intentional misrepresentation, wrongful eviction, violations of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, unlawful and unfair business practices, and violations of the Civil Code.

            On May 2, 2023, Plaintiffs served Defendant with requests for admission (RFAs).

            On June 15, 2023, Plaintiffs filed this motion to deem admitted the RFAs and request for sanctions.

            On August 23, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiffs with verified responses to the RFAs.

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 finds this motion moot because Defendant served Plaintiffs with verified responses on August 23, 2023. (Ex. A.) However, Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c), mandates sanctions. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable, and she has substantiated her request with an hourly breakdown of work performed. (Chevez Decl., ¶ 4.) However, much of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s work on this motion duplicates her prior motion to deem RFAs admitted. The court will reduce the award of attorney’s fees accordingly.

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court finds Plaintiffs’ motion to deem the RFAs admitted moot. The court orders sanctions against Defendant in the sum of $525 payable to Plaintiffs by October 1, 2023.

 Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.