Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Jonathan Bodnar and Apollo Eleven, Inc. 

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff David Godley 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

Plaintiff David Godley alleges Defendants Jonathan Bodner and Apollo Eleven, Inc. breached a contract.  Plaintiff seeks $25,000.  There are no other allegations in the form Complaint.  Plaintiff is appearing in pro per.      

This hearing is on Defendants’ motion to deem the truth of matters admitted in its Requests for Admissions – Set One (“RFAs”) and for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,360.00.  Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to verify its responses to the RFAs, and therefore, it provided no response at all and waived all objections.  No opposition was filed, as of the posting of this tentative order.    

 

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 

 

Defendants served the RFAs on October 10, 2022.  (Tapp Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A to Tapp Decl.)  Responses were due on November 15, 2022.  Defense counsel gave Plaintiff several extensions to respond, with the most recent deadline on February 15, 2023.  (Tapp Decl. ¶ 3.)  Ultimately, Plaintiff responded but failed to verify his responses.  (Tapp Decl. ¶ 6; Ex. B to Tapp Decl.)  Plaintiff was informed of his failure to verify and given additional time to provide the verification.  (Tapp Decl. ¶ 5.)  But as of the date of the filing of Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff failed to provide the verification.  (Tapp Decl. ¶ 6.)     

In California, a failure to verify discovery responses is tantamount to no response at all.  (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-36.)  Plaintiff served unverified responses to the RFAs.  Because the responses are unverified, Plaintiff is deemed to have served no response at all.  The truth of any matters specified in the RFA’s are, therefore, admitted.     

Defendant also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $1,360.¿ 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 Plaintiff failed to timely provide a verification, necessitating this motion.¿  

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 15 years and is a principal at his own Dallas-based law firm, Royal, Tapp & Clemko PLCC.  The Court finds that counsel’s hourly rate of $325 is reasonable and lower than rates charged for attorneys of similar experience in Southern California.  (See , e.g., Talamante v. Kia Motors Am. Inc., 2019 Cal. Super. LEXIS 16100 at *3 (hourly rate of $450 reasonable for attorney of 15 years experience); Vivo v. Jcia Motors Am., 2019 Cal. Super. LEXIS 27540 at *20 (hourly rate of $500 reasonable for attorneys with 11-15 years experience); Kim v. Hyundai Motor Am., 2019 Cal. Super. LEXIS 13109 at *5 (hourly rate of $500 reasonable for attorney with 15 years experience).) 

The Court also concludes the hours billed (four hours) are reasonable.  (Jrm Constr. Mgmt. W. LLC v. Retail Display Mfg., 2019 Cal. Super. LEXIS 20687 at *2-*3 (four hours reasonable for a simple discovery motion); Dabney v. Alen's Auto Care & Sales, 2022 Cal. Super. LEXIS 47890 at *4 (five hours reasonable for a simple motion to compel).) 

Accordingly, the Court will award monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,360.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, and grants monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,360 to be paid by Plaintiff.    

DATED:  March 29, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court