Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV01530, Date: 2024-09-12 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: 23CHCV01530    Hearing Date: September 12, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

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

Motion filed: 8/15/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Ahmed Helmy

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Normajean Yamashita

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court to deem Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted, and to impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her attorney of record, in the amount of $980.00.

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

BACKGROUND

This action arises from alleged injuries that Plaintiff sustained in a vehicle accident on June 26, 2021.

On May 25, 2023, Plaintiff Normajean Yamashita (“Plaintiff” or “Yamashita”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Ahmed Helmy (“Defendant” or “Helmy”) and Does 1 to 10, alleging one cause of action for Motor Vehicle Liability. Subsequently, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint on December 6, 2023.

On August 15, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Deem Admitted Request for Admission, Set One (the “Motion”). Additionally, Defendant requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her attorney of record. 

Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a Declaration in response to the Motion on September 3, 2024. No Opposition has been received by the Court. Defendant filed a Reply on September 5, 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 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 Admitted Requests for Admission, Set One

Defendant’s counsel attests that on December 21, 2023, Plaintiff was served with multiple sets of written discovery, including the Requests for Admission, Set One, to which responses were due on January 22, 2024. (Ahdoot Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. “A.”) Subsequently, on multiple occasions in June and July of 2024, Defendant followed up with Plaintiff in writing, and via telephone, requesting that Plaintiff provide responses as soon as possible. (Id. ¶ 5.) Despite these efforts, no responses had been received by the time of the filing of this Motion. (Id. ¶ 6.)

Based on the above records, the Court determines that Defendant failed to serve a timely response.

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’s counsel attests that the responses to the Requests for Admission, Set One, have been submitted to Defendant on September 2, 2024. (Sanders Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. “A.”) Plaintiff’s counsel explains that the untimely responses were due to a series of unfortunate incidents, including the long-term medical leave of his administrative assistant, the advanced age of the real party Plaintiff, and some family issues of the counsel himself. (Id. ¶¶ 4-8.)

In the Reply, Defendant does not contest that Plaintiff’s responses, albeit untimely, were in substantial compliance with relevant Code of Civil Procedure sections.

Additionally, the Court observes that the provision in section 2033.300 regarding relief based on mistake, inadvertence and excusable neglect is identical in most respects to the language and spirit of section 473, subdivision (b). Both statutes serve similar purposes – to allow relief where it serves the interests of substantial justice. The Court’s discretion in granting such relief is not unlimited and must be exercised in conformity with the spirit of relief intended by the statute so that substantial justice is served, not defeated. Because the law favors that cases be tried and decided on their merits, if there are any doubts whether relief should be granted, they must be resolved in favor of the person seeking relief. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1419.)

Based on the declaration submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel and the application of relevant legal principles, the Court, in its discretion, finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated excusable neglect, thereby justifying relief from the waiver that would preclude her from asserting any objections to the requests. The Court perceives no prejudice to Defendant resulting from the delay, other than the need to pursue his case on the merits.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion to Deem 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).)

Although Plaintiff is relieved from waiver, the Court finds that the mandatory sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c) are still applicable in this case.

Accordingly, the Court determines the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the Motion to be $520.00, calculated based on a reasonable hourly rate of $230.00 for 2 hours reasonably spent, in addition to a $60.00 filing fee.

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

CONCLUSION

Defendant Ahmed Helmy’s Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission, Set One, is DENIED.

Defendant Ahmed Helmy’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff Normajean Yamashita and her attorney of record are ordered to jointly and severally pay $520.00 to Defendant’s attorney of record within 20 days.

Moving party to give notice.