Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV34117, Date: 2022-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34117    Hearing Date: December 21, 2022    Dept: 28

Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Have Requests for Admission, Set One Deemed Admitted, and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $660.00

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.  No opposing papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

            On September 15, 2021, Michelle Anne Leonard (“Plaintiff”) commenced the present action by filing a Complaint against Lyft, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 50.  Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a single cause of action for “General Negligence”.  Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges Plaintiff was a passenger of a ride-share vehicle operated by one of Defendant’s employees.  Once Plaintiff reached her destination, Defendant’s employee began assisting Plaintiff in exiting the vehicle.  Plaintiff was in a wheelchair.  Defendant’s employee lost control of Plaintiff’s wheelchair, causing Plaintiff to fall and causing Plaintiff personal injuries.

            On February 25, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer.

            On November 3, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Have Requests for Admission, Set One Deemed Admitted, and Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $660.00. 

            Trial is set for March 15, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

            Defendant moves for an Order deeming the truth of the matters included within Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted by Plaintiff, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

            Defendant additionally moves for an Order imposing monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record in the amount of $660.00, to be paid within thirty (30) days of the hearing date, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (

LEGAL STANDARD

When a party fails to timely respond to requests for admissions, “[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party “waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)  Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.250, a responding party must serve responses to a propounding party’s requests for admissions within thirty (30) days of service.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).)

“The court shall make . . . [an] order [deeming the truth of the matters specified in the requests for admission for which a timely response has not been served admitted], 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).)

When a party fails to timely respond to requests for admissions, “[t]he requesting party may move . . . for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

            The Court concludes Defendant is entitled to an Order deeming the truth of the matters included within Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted by Plaintiff, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  Defendant demonstrates, on approximately July 25, 2022, Plaintiff was properly served with Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set One pursuant to electronic service upon Plaintiff’s counsel of record, John R. Rofael of Downtown LA Law Group.  (Casey Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A at pp. 4-5 [Proof of Service].)  Pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff was required to serve responses to Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set One no later than August 26, 2022.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.250, subd. (a) [responses to requests for admission must be served within 30 days of service], 1010.6, subd. (a)(4)(B) [two court day extension when served with discovery by electronic transmission].)  Defendant confirms Plaintiff has not served a response to Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set One by the aforementioned deadline, or anytime thereafter.  (Casey Decl., ¶ 4 [“As of the date of filing this motion, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s Requests for Admission.”].)   Accordingly, as Defendant’s submitted evidence sufficiently demonstrates Plaintiff has failed to serve a timely response to Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set One, the Court concludes Defendant is entitled to an Order deeming the truth of the matters included within Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted by Plaintiff, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

            The Court further concludes monetary sanctions may be properly issued against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, jointly and severally, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivisions (b) and (c).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b), (c).)  The Court observes Plaintiff has not filed an Opposition to the present Motion and, as a result, Plaintiff has proffered no argument demonstrating her failure to respond to Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set One was substantially justified.  Accordingly, the Court concludes monetary sanctions may be properly issued against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, jointly and severally, in an amount of $560.00 ($250.00 hourly billing rate multiplied by 2 hours in preparing motion and attending hearing, plus $60.00 filing fee).  (Casey Decl., ¶¶ 5-7.) 

CONCLUSION

            Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Have Requests for Admission, Set One Deemed Admitted, and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED.  The Court orders the truth of the matters included within Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set One admitted by Plaintiff.  The Court further issues monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, jointly and severally, in an amount of $560.00, to be paid within thirty (30) days of this Court’s Order.

            Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Defendant is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.