Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV16760, Date: 2024-07-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV16760    Hearing Date: July 29, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On July 18, 2024, Plaintiff Adalberto Campos filed this action against various insurance companies, asserting breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint stems from Defendants’ alleged refusal to cover an auto accident that Plaintiff was involved in. Specifically, Defendants allegedly rescinded coverage based on Plaintiff’s purported failure to disclose an additional driver (Daniel Campos) on the policy. Plaintiff alleges that Daniel Campos was a minor at the time of the accident, was not an additional driver, and was not driving or present at the time of the accident. 

            On July 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to deem matters admitted against Defendant National General Insurance Company. Defendant filed its opposition on July 16, 2024. Plaintiff filed his reply on July 18, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

Responses to requests for admission are due thirty days after service of the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250(a).) If a party fails to timely respond to RFAs, the propounding party may move to deem the matters admitted. (Id., § 2033.280(b).) The motion must be granted unless the responding party serves substantially compliant responses before the hearing on the motion. (Id., subd. (c).) Monetary sanctions are mandatory regardless of whether the matters are deemed admitted and regardless of substantial justification. (Ibid.)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff served the subject RFAs on December 20, 2023. (Tabone Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendant requested extensions, which were granted. (Id., ¶ 4, Ex. B.) Defendant ultimately served its responses on March 4, 2024. (Id., ¶ 5, Ex. C.) The responses contained both objections and substantive answers. (Ibid.) However, the responses were unverified. (Ibid.)

            “The party to whom the requests for admission are directed shall sign the response under oath, unless the response contains only objections.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.240(a).) Unverified responses are tantamount to no response at all. (Appleton v. Super. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Here, Defendant’s RFA responses contained more than objections, yet Defendant failed to verify them. Thus, Defendant has essentially failed to provide any response at all.

            However, Defendant provided the missing verification on July 16, 2024. (Austin Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. 1.) Defendant’s responses are otherwise substantially compliant. (See Tabone Decl., Ex. C.) Thus, the matters are not deemed admitted. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).)

            Nonetheless, monetary sanctions are mandatory because Defendant’s failure to timely provide verified responses necessitated the motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).) There is no exception for substantial justification, and there is no requirement to meet and confer for a motion to deem matters admitted. The reasonable amount is $860, representing 2 hours at $400 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to deem matters admitted is DENIED. The Court sanctions Defendant National General Insurance Company and its counsel in the total amount of $860, to be paid within 30 days of this order.