Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV01453, Date: 2024-11-21 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: 23CHCV01453    Hearing Date: November 21, 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: 6/11/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Simon Ginez Monico  

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Bryan Elias Sanchez

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court to deem Defendant/Cross-Complainant Simon Ginez Monico’s Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted, and to impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,320.00.

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

BACKGROUND

This case arises from alleged injuries sustained by Plaintiffs in a May 22, 2021, automobile collision.

On May 18, 2023, Plaintiffs Bryan Elias Sanchez (“Sanchez”), Aaron Denigris (“Denigris”), Darryl Benedict Cassell (“Cassell”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendant/Cross-Complainant Simon Ginez Monico (“Monico”) and Does 1 to 25, alleging: (1) Motor Vehicle Liability, and (2) General Negligence. On June 4, 2024, Plaintiffs substituted Defendant Simon Ginez-Perez (“Ginez-Perez”) for Doe 1. Subsequently, on February 27, 2024, Monico filed his Answer to the Complaint.
 

On the same day, February 27, 2024, Monico filed his Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Sanchez for Indemnity, Contribution, and Declaratory Relief. Sanchez subsequently filed his Answer to the Cross-Complaint on March 29, 2024.

On June 11, 2024, Monico filed the instant Motion to Deem the Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted (the “Motion”). Subsequently, on November 6, 2024, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Sanchez filed his Opposition to the Motion, and Monico replied on November 14, 2024.

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 requests for admissions is served fails to provide a timely response, the party to whom the request was directed waives any objections, including one 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

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Monico’s counsel, Robert G. McKeon (“McKeon”), attests that on March 14, 2024, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Sanchez was served with the first set of Requests for Admission by email. (McKeon Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. “A.”) The service established that responses were due on April 17, 2024, including a two-court-day extension provided under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, subdivision (a)(3)(B), which applies to electronic service. On April 5, 2024, Sanchez’s counsel requested a three-week extension to respond to the Requests for Admission, Set One. Monico granted the request, setting a new due deadline to respond as April 26, 2024. (Id. ¶ 5.) Subsequently, Monico granted two additional extensions to respond, on May 1 and May 23, 2024, respectively. (Id. ¶¶ 7-9.) The final extension required Sanchez to provide verified responses, without objection, by June 3, 2024. (Id. ¶ 9.)  However, as of the date the Motion was filed, Sanchez had not served any responses despite Monico’s multiple extensions and efforts to meet and confer. (Id. ¶¶ 11-16.)

In the Opposition, Sanchez asserts that verified substantive responses were subsequently served on Monico on July 31, 2024, rendering the Motion moot. (Opp’n. at p. 3.) In the Reply, Monico does not dispute that these responses were in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.

Accordingly, the Court determines that Sanchez has served the untimely responses to the Requests for Admission, Set One, before the hearing of the Motion.  

Sanchez further argues that the Motion must be denied on procedural grounds due to the lack of a separate statement. (Opp’n. at pp. 4-5.) The Court rejects this argument, noting that Sanchez appears to conflate a motion to deem admitted (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280) with a motion to compel further responses (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290). These are distinct motions, and the requirement for a separate statement applies only to the latter. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(1).) Accordingly, the Court finds Sanchez’s argument on this ground to be without merit.

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the Motion as Moot, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).

The sole remaining issue pertains to Monico’s request for monetary sanctions.

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, as Plaintiff Sanchez failed to serve a timely response before the Motion was filed. The Court determines that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the Motion is $480.00, calculated based on a reasonable hourly rate of $210.00 for 2 hours reasonably performed, plus a $60.00 filing fee.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendant/Cross-Complainant Monico’s request for monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Simon Ginez Monico’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted is DENIED AS MOOT.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Simon Ginez Monico’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Bryan Elias Sanchez and his attorney of record are ordered to jointly and severally pay $480.00 to Defendant/Cross-Complainant Simon Ginez Monico’s counsel within 20 days.

Moving party to give notice.