Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Chris De La Cruz 

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Johnny Neal, Jr. 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This case arises from a claim of harassment.  Plaintiff Johnny Neal Jr. was employed at Marina Del Rey Toyota as a salesman.  Defendant Chris De La Cruz was the finance director.  Plaintiff alleges Defendant would repeatedly verbally harass him by threatening to break the glass windows in his office, telling him to “shut the fuck up,” threatening to not fund Plaintiff’s car deals, and telling other management that Defendant would harm Plaintiff.  The harassment escalated to a physical assault which resulted in Plaintiff being carried off in an ambulance.  The operative complaint alleges claims for harassment and assault.  Plaintiff is appearing in pro per.     

This hearing is on Defendant’s motion to deem admitted requests for admissions and for sanctions in the amount of $2,160.  The requests for admissions were served by mail on January 18, 2023, and responses were due by February 22, 2023.  No responses were served, and no opposition was filed. 

 

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 request 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 

 

Defendant served requests for admissions on Plaintiff on January 18, 2023.  Responses were due by February 22, 2023.  Plaintiff has not served responses.  Accordingly, the motion to deem requests for admissions is granted. 

Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,160.  The fees are based on an hourly rate of $700 for three hours billed (one hour each for drafting the motion, preparing a reply, and attending the hearing).  Defendant also seeks costs in the amount of $60.   

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.)  Here, Defense counsel has 24 years experience and has substantial trial experience.  His practice focuses on civil litigation matters including employment law and real property claims.  The Court finds that counsel’s hourly rate of $700 is reasonable and in line with rates charged by attorneys of similar experience in Southern California.  (See, e.g., Stafford v. Brink's, Inc., 2019 Cal. Super. LEXIS 2595 at *16 ($700 hourly rate was reasonable for the Los Angeles market in 2019, given the extensive litigation experience of the attorneys representing Plaintiff); Ochoa v. Supra Nat'l Exp Cal. Corp., 2022 Cal. Super. LEXIS 66622 at *3 (finding $700 hourly rate reasonable in county of Los Angeles); Zamudio v. Cec Entm't, 2019 Cal. Super. LEXIS 13269 at *9-*10 ($700 hourly rate reasonable in 2019 for Los Angeles County).) 

The Court also concludes the hours billed are reasonable.  (Singh v. Singh, 2022 Cal. Super. LEXIS 74456 at *3 (three hours reasonable for a simple discovery motion); Loekman v. Ku Fang Lin, 2021 Cal. Super. LEXIS 133768 at *3 (three hours reasonable for a motion to compel); Hemphill v. Riser-Zanders, 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 181 (three hours reasonable for a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions).) 

Accordingly, the Court will award monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,160.  

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, and grants monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,160 to be paid by Plaintiff.    

DATED:  March 20, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court