Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 24STCV28718, Date: 2025-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV28718    Hearing Date: May 5, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On November 1, 2024, Plaintiff George Jones filed this action against Defendants Strategy Investment Inc. and Royalty Liquor & Market Inc., alleging disability discrimination.

            On April 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant two motions to deem matters admitted. Defendants filed their opposition on April 22, 2025. Plaintiff filed his reply on April 28, 2025.

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 ultimately deemed admitted and regardless of substantial justification. (Ibid.)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff served the subject RFAs on January 29, 2025. (Chernoff Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff granted multiple extensions, such that the due date of the responses was March 31, 2025. (Id., ¶ 5.) As of the filing of this motion, Defendants have not served responses. (Id., ¶ 6.) Thus, the matters may be deemed admitted unless Defendants serve substantially compliant responses before the hearing on the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).)

            Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer and failed to communicate his intent to file this motion. Neither of these are requirements for a motion to deem matters admitted. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s motion fails to mention the pending motion for protective order addressing the same set of RFAs. The Court is on notice of the motion for protective order. However, the motion for protective order does not preclude this motion. Defendants failed to file the motion for protective order “promptly.” (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.080(a).)

            Ultimately, Defendants do not dispute that the latest deadline for serving responses was March 31, 2025. Defendants do not dispute that they did not serve responses by March 31, 2025. Thus, Plaintiff was entitled to file these motions.

            Monetary sanctions are “mandatory” because Defendants’ failure to respond necessitated the motions. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).) Plaintiff’s counsel claims an hourly rate of $395, which is reasonable. (See Chernoff Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff’s counsel claims to have incurred 2.8 hours for one motion and 4.7 hours for the other. (Ibid.) Given the simplicity of the motions, the Court reduces this to 2 hours per motion. Plaintiff also incurred a $60 filing fee for each motion. Therefore, the Court awards sanctions in amount of $850 for each Defendant.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motions to deem matters admitted are GRANTED unless Defendants serve substantially compliant responses before the hearing on the motions. The Court sanctions each Defendant in the amount of $850, to be paid within 30 days of this order.