Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 21STCV31465, Date: 2022-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31465    Hearing Date: December 21, 2022    Dept: 68

Optimal Capital Consultants, LLC, et al. vs. Lindsay Pierce, et al., Case No.: 21STCV31465

Two Motions to (1) Deem Responses to Requests for Admission Admitted and (2) Award Sanctions against Plaintiff

Moving Party:  Defendants Lindsay Pierce and Rom Alborzi (Defendants)

Responding Party:  Plaintiff Optimal Capital Consultants, LLC (Plaintiff)

Responding Party:    Plaintiff JJK Enterprises, LLC (Plaintiff)

Sanctions:  Requested against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s attorney

BACKGROUND

The complaint in this case was filed on August 25, 2021. In their complaint, Plaintiffs are alleging a cause of action for breach of contract related to a lease agreement. Defendants filed this motion on November 28, 2022.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            The moving party requests an order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2033.280(b) and 2023.010 to (1) deeming the RFAs admitted; and (2) awarding Defendants monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s attorney in the amount of $2,810.00 for attorney fees and costs for being required to bring the instant motion. Defendants propounded the RFAs upon Plaintiff on September 14, 2022. Plaintiff did not respond by the deadline, nor has Plaintiff given any response to date.

OPPOSITION

            Plaintiff has filed no opposition nor given any reason for why it has not submitted its responses.

ANALYSIS

I.          Request for Admissions

            “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.” (CCP § 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…” (CCP § 2033.250(a).)

If a party to whom request for admissions are 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. (CCP § 2033.280(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. (CCP § 2033.280(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. (CCP § 2033.280(c).)

Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ RFAs within the allotted time frame and had still not replied to the RFAs as of the time of the filing of Defendants’ motion. (Galperin Decl., ¶¶ 4-6.)

            Accordingly, Defendants’ request to deem RFAs admitted is GRANTED.

II.        Sanctions

            Sanctions are mandatory against the party, the attorney, or both whose failure to serve a timely response to the request necessitated the motion to deem request for admissions as admitted. CCP § 2033.280(c); see also Cal. Rules of Court R. 3.1348(a) (the court can award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party seeking to compel discovery even though no opposition was filed, the opposition was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed).

Defendants’ moving papers request sanctions in the amount of $2,810.00. This request is based upon the expenses that Defendants expect to incur because of Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’ requests for admission. Defendants’ counsel, Yury Galperin, submitted a declaration outlining the basis for the amount requested. He stated in his declaration that he, as counsel for Defendants, spent 1.5 hours drafting the motion, and he expects to spend 1.5 hours drafting the reply motion, and 2.5 hours traveling to and attending the hearing, at a billing rate of $500 per hour, for a total of $2,750.00. (Galperin Decl., ¶ 7.) Fees on the motion were $60.00. (Galperin Decl., ¶ 7.) This is a total of $2,810.00. However, no opposition was filed therefore no reply motion was necessary. Additionally, his appearance at the hearing may be remote, justifying less than 2.5 hours work. 

            Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants’ requests for admissions. Defendants requested sanctions against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s attorney and supported the request for sanctions with a memorandum of points and authorities and a declaration from Defendants’ counsel. Therefore, the Court shall award the mandatory sanctions, at a reduced amount.

Defendants’ request for sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney is GRANTED. The amount shall be determined at the hearing . Sanctions are payable to counsel for moving party within 45 days of service of this order.

CONCLUSION

            Defendants’ motion to deem responses to request for admissions is granted, and sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s attorney in the amount determined at the hearing.