Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2021-1217896, Date: 2022-11-28 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Daniel Princeotto’s unopposed Motion for an Order that Requests for Admission be Deemed Admitted and $1,202.50 in Sanctions is GRANTED.

Requests for Admissions, set one, were served on March 7, 2022. (Weinberg Decl., ¶5)  After receiving no response, a letter was sent on May 18, 2022 requesting a response. (Weinberg Decl., ¶6)  There has been no response to the discovery or the meet and confer correspondence. (Weinberg Decl., ¶7)  On June 3, 2022, plaintiff served the subject motion on Defendant Patricia Princeotto.  There was no opposition filed to the motion and the matter came on for hearing on 10/17/22.  In light of plaintiff’s zip code on the proof of service being off by one number, the Court continued the hearing to 11/28/22 and ordered counsel to re-serve the motion on the plaintiff.  Counsel for defendant has re-served the motion and attached a proof of service.  There continues to be no opposition to the motion.

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2033.280 states as follows: “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:  (a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed 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). …(c)… 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.”

Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion is granted.   The requests in Requests For Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted.  Defendant Patricia Princeotto is ordered to pay reduced sanctions in the amount of $530 to plaintiff, through his counsel of record, within 60 days of the date of notice of this ruling.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.