Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV03838, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03838    Hearing Date: April 2, 2024    Dept: 74

Sky 2 C Freight Systems, Inc. v. Valley of the Sun Cosmetics, LLC

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 business dispute.

            On February 21, 2023, Plaintiff Sky 2 Freight Systems, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Valley of the Sun Cosmetics, LLC (Defendant). The complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) for goods and services sold and delivered, (2) account stated, and (3) open book account.

            On October 5, 2023, Plaintiff propounded requests for admission (RFAs) on Defendant.

            Defendant did not respond.

            Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer to no avail.

            On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to deem the 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 

            The court grants this motion because Defendant failed to provide timely responses to the RFAs. Moreover, sanctions are mandatory. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).) The court finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s proposed hourly rate reasonable, and she has substantiated her request for attorney fees with a breakdown of work performed. (Minassian Decl., ¶ 5.)

CONCLUSION 

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to deem the requests for admission admitted. The court grants Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. Defendant shall pay Plaintiff’s counsel attorney fees in the sum of $1,245 within 30 days of this order.

Plaintiff shall give notice.

Sky 2 C Freight Systems, Inc. v. Valley of the Sun Cosmetics, LLC

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two) 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 business dispute.

            On February 21, 2023, Plaintiff Sky 2 Freight Systems, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Valley of the Sun Cosmetics, LLC (Defendant). The complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) for goods and services sold and delivered, (2) account stated, and (3) open book account.

            On October 5, 2023, Plaintiff propounded form interrogatories (set two) on Defendant.

            Defendant did not provide timely responses.

            Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer to no avail.

            On January 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel Defendant’s responses to the form interrogatories.

LEGAL STANDARD

¿¿            If a party to whom interrogatories or an inspection demand were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b), 2031.300, subd. (b).) Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).) Failure to verify a response is equivalent to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) 

DISCUSSION 

            The court grants this motion because Defendant has not responded to the form interrogatories. Moreover, sanctions are warranted because Defendant has not provided substantial justification for its failure to respond. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Plaintiff’s counsel’s proposed hourly rate is reasonable, and she has substantiated her request for attorney fees with a breakdown of work performed. (Minassian Decl., ¶ 5.) However, this motion duplicates in part Plaintiff’s prior discovery motion. Moreover, the court will hear both motions at the same hearing. Thus, the court will reduce the award to $455 (($395 x 1 hour for preparation of motion) + $60 filing fee.)

CONCLUSION 

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s responses to form interrogatories (set two). Defendant shall provide Code-compliant responses, without objections, to the form interrogatories within 10 days of this order. The court grants Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. Defendant shall pay Plaintiff’s counsel attorney fees in the sum of $455 within 30 days of this order.

Plaintiff shall give notice.