Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV00519, Date: 2024-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 23CHCV00519    Hearing Date: September 30, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Motion filed: 5/30/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Madison Lenore Smith and Scott Halsey  

RESPONDING PARTY: None

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court to deem Defendants’ Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted, and to impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $600.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

This case arises from alleged injuries sustained by Plaintiff from an automobile accident that occurred on February 24, 2021.

On February 23, 2023, Plaintiff Marvin Ernesto Bonilla Martinez (“Plaintiff” or “Martinez”) filed the Complaint against Defendants Madison Lenore Smith (“Smith”), Scott Halsey (“Halsey,” erroneously sued as Halsey Scott) (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 to 50, alleging two causes of action: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence, and (2) General Negligence. Subsequently, on February 7, 2024, Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint.

On May 30, 2024, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Deem the Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted (the “Motion”).

No Opposition or Reply papers have been received by the Court.

ANALYSIS

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.010.)¿ “Within 30 days after service of requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared ....”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).)¿

If a party to whom request for admissions is served fails to provide a timely response, the party to whom the request was directed waives any objections, including based on privilege or the work product doctrine. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) The requesting party can move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The court shall issue this order unless the party to whom the request was made serves a response in substantial compliance prior to the hearing on the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)¿

A.    Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted

Defendants’ counsel, David J. Mendoza (“Mendoza”), attests that on March 6, 2024, Plaintiff was served with the first set of Requests for Admission by email, establishing that responses were due on April 9, 2024. (Mendoza Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. “2.”) No responses were received by the established due date. (Id. ¶ 4.) On May 1, 2024, Mendoza’s office emailed Plaintiff’s counsel, advising that no responses had been received and requesting that Plaintiff serve responses, without objection, by May 6, 2024. (Id. ¶ 5, Ex. “B.”) However, as of the date of filing of the Motion, Plaintiff has not served any responses. (Id. ¶ 6.)

Based on the above records, the Court determines that Plaintiff failed to serve a timely response, thereby waiving any objection to the interrogatories, including those based on privilege or the protection for work product, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (a).

Nevertheless, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (a), the court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230. (2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

Here, Plaintiff did not file an Opposition to the Motion. Nor did Plaintiff move separately for relief from the waiver. Additionally, there is no record indicating any responses have been subsequently served by Plaintiff prior to the hearing. Consequently, the Court finds that relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 is unavailable in this circumstance.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Motion, deeming the Requests for Admission, Set One, served by Defendants on March 6, 2024, admitted.

A.    Monetary Sanctions

“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).)

The Court finds the mandatory sanction applies in this case and it determines the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the Motion to be $420.00, calculated based on a reasonable hourly rate of $180.00 for 2 hours reasonably spent, plus a $60.00 filing fee.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Madison Lenore Smith and Scott Halsey’s unopposed Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted is GRANTED.

Defendants Madison Lenore Smith and Scott Halsey’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff Marvin Ernesto Bonilla Martinez and his attorney of record are ordered to jointly and severally pay $420.00 to Defendants within 20 days.

Moving party to give notice.