Judge Curtis A. Kin, Case 21STCV27900 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 21STCV27900, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV27900 Hearing Date: March 16, 2023 Dept: 72

MOTION FOR ORDER THAT THE GENUINENESS OF DOCUMENTS AND TRUTH OF MATTERS

BE DEEMED ADMITTED

Date: 3/16/23 (8:30 AM)

Case: Family Choice Private Duty Agency, Inc. v. Easton, et al. (21STCV27900)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant/cross-complainant Kamerron Easton’s Motion for Order that the Genuineness of Documents and Truth of Matters Be Deemed Admitted is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendant/cross-complainant Kamerron Easton seeks an order deeming admitted against plaintiff/cross-defendant Family Choice Private Duty Agency, Inc. (“Family Choice”) the genuineness of documents and the truth of matters set forth in Requests for Admission, Set One. However, on February 13, 2023, before the hearing on the instant motion, Family Choice served verified responses to Requests for Admission, Set One. (Hahn Decl. ¶ 8 & Ex. 2.)

When “a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response,” “[t]he 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.” (CCP § 2033.280(c).) In substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.220, most of Family Choice’s responses either admit the matter as written in the requests or reasonably and clearly qualified by Family Choice, deny the matter in the requests, or state that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the requests was made and that the known or readily obtainable information is insufficient for Family Choice to admit the matter.

However, with respect to Request No. 15, Family Choice provides the following non-sensical response that reads more like a request for admission than an answer to one: “Admit that invoices showing the 24-hour care scheduled for Marilyn Ashby were sometimes prepared before the timesheets were submitted.” (Hahn Decl. ¶ 8 & Ex. 2.) Further, with respect to Request for Admission Nos. 19 and 26 and Request to Admit Genuineness of Documents D-24 through D-31, Family Choice asserted objections without admitting, denying, or asserting a lack of sufficient information to admit the matter, as required by CCP § 2033.220. The subject Requests for Admission, Set One were served on December 29, 2022 by mail. (Easton Decl. ¶ 2 & Ex. A.) Accordingly, the deadline to serve responses was February 2, 2022. (CCP § 2033.250(a) [30 days after service of requests for admission]; 1013(a) [five calendar days added for mail].) As of February 8, 2023, the filing date of the motion, no responses were served. (Easton Decl. ¶ 5.) Consequently, objections to the subject Requests for Admission, Set One are waived. (CCP § 2033.280(a).)

Moreover, Family Choice did not respond to Request to Admit Genuineness of Documents D-1, instead responding to Request for Admission No. 27, which was not served on Family Choice. (Easton Decl. Att. 1.) Accordingly, Family Choice failed to serve a response to Request No. D-1 that is in substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.220.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED IN PART. The matters set forth in Request for Admission, Set One, Nos. 19 and 26 and the genuineness of documents set forth in Request to Admit Genuineness of Documents D-1 and D-24 through D-31 are deemed admitted against plaintiff/cross-defendant Family Choice Private Duty Agency, Inc.

Defendant/cross-complainant Kamerron Easton’s request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. The imposition of monetary sanctions is mandatory where the failure to serve timely responses to the requests for admission necessitated the motion. (CCP § 2033.280(c).) However, even though defendant is an attorney, defendant is self-represented and accordingly cannot recover attorney’s fees as a monetary sanction for the discovery violation. (Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1180 [“If an attorney pro se litigant's time is compensated by a discovery sanction, the time of other nonattorney pro se litigants . . . should also be compensated. Clearly, there is no support for such a broad construction of the statute in case authority”].) Whether defendant is appearing on behalf of himself as an individual or as personal representative of the Estate of Marilyn Ashby, defendant is still appearing in pro per and not as an attorney of record. Accordingly, defendant’s recovery of monetary sanctions is limited to the $61.65 in costs to file the instant motion. (Easton Decl. ¶ 7.) Such monetary sanctions shall be paid within thirty (30) days hereof.