Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Catherine Logerot, Estate of Steven A. Tate and Steven A. Tate, individually and through his successor in interest, Catherine Logerot 

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants 13000 Victory Boulevard LLC, Windsor Gardens Healthcare Management Inc. and S&F Management Company, LLC 

BACKGROUND 

This action arises from a claim of elder abuse.  Defendant 13000 Victory Boulevard LLC is a licensed 24-hour nursing facility (the “Facility”).  (Compl. ¶9.)  Defendant Windsor Healthcare Management, LLC (“WHM”) is a managing member of the Facility.  (Id. ¶4.)  Defendant S&F Management Company, LLC (“S&F”) is the Facility’s owner, operator, parent company and/or management company.  (Id. ¶10.)  Steven A. Tate was a resident of the Facility.  He died while at the Facility.  Plaintiff Catherine A. Logerot is Tate’s surviving daughter and brings this action as his successor in interest.  (Id. ¶16.)     

Plaintiff alleges the Facility placed Tate on a dangerous pain medication regimen; failed to watch, monitor or care for him; failed to assess and accurately report in the medical record his declining physical and mental status, and failed to keep his family and others informed as to his declining state.  (Id. ¶48.)   

Plaintiff further alleges these acts were not isolated failures but rather part of Defendants’ calculated business practices of (1) understaffing, (2) relentless marketing and sales practices to increase resident and patient numbers, (3) using unqualified and untrained employees, and (4) recruiting heavier care residents for whom the nursing home received higher reimbursements but for whom Defendants could not properly care given the understaffing and poor training.  (Compl. ¶79.) 

The operative complaint alleges claims for (1) elder abuse, (2) negligence, (3) negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention, (4) violation of residents rights, (5) medical malpractice, (6) wrongful death, and (7) survivorship action.   

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s three separate motions to deem admitted requests for admissions served on the Facility, WHM and S&F.  Plaintiff argues that she served requests for admissions to which Defendants have not timely responded.  No opposition has been filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling.   

      LEGAL STANDARD 

Where a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).) 

The court shall grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) 

Where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t 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).)  While delayed responses may avoid a motion to deem admitted, they will not avoid monetary sanctions.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280 subd. (c); Gonzales v. Harris, 2021 Cal. Super. LEXIS 29267 at *6 (even if delayed responses are served, sanctions are mandatory because the motion had to be brought, regardless of whether it is ultimately denied because responses are served before the hearing).)  

ANALYSIS 

Plaintiff served by mail requests for admissions, set one on Defendants on June 13, 2023.  Responses were due by July 18, 2023.  Defendants never responded.  Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motions to deem admitted requests for admissions, set one. 

Plaintiff also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $3,910 for each of the three motions, for a total of $11,730.  Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §2033.280(c), “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction … on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”¿ The Court concludes sanctions are mandatory given Defendants failed to timely provide responses, necessitating these motions.¿  

In determining the appropriate amount of sanctions, the Court starts with the lodestar which is the reasonable hourly rate multiplied by the reasonable hours spent.  (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1096; see also¿Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)   

Defense counsel has been practicing law for 38 years.  (Shtofman Decl. ¶9.)  His hourly rate of $700 has been deemed reasonable by judges of the Superior Court in Los Angeles County, San Bernardino County, and Orange County. (Id.)  The Court finds that counsel’s hourly rate of $700 is reasonable and consistent with rates charged for attorneys of similar experience in Southern California.  The costs of $60 for filing each motion is also reasonable.   

However, the Court concludes the hours billed is excessive.  The three motions were virtually identical, and the request of $3,190 for each motion is unwarranted.  The Court concludes that the appropriate sanctions is $4,530 in fees ($3,190 for the first motion, and $700 each for the other two motions) and $180 in filing fees.     

Accordingly, the Court will award monetary sanctions in the total amount of $4,770 for all three motions.   

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions to deem admitted requests for admissions and awards sanctions against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $4,770.  

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: August 29, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court