Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This action arises from an employment dispute.  Plaintiff Kristen Hamilton-Heinberg alleges she was wrongfully terminated by Defendant Alpargatas USA, Inc. because of her medical condition and her requests for medical leave.  Plaintiff claims Defendant failed to engage in the interactive process to assess what accommodations Plaintiff would require and thus did not reasonably accommodate Plaintiff. 

On October 16, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s former counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.  Plaintiff is now appearing in pro per.     

This hearing is on Defendant’s motion to deem admitted its requests for admissions.  Defendant argues that it served requests for admissions (“RFAs”) to which Plaintiff has not responded.  Defendant has made multiple efforts to communicate with Plaintiff regarding outstanding discovery, to no avail.  Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s communications also means Defendant was unable to schedule an informal discovery conference. 

      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 

Defendant served the RFAs on Plaintiff on September 14, 2023 via federal express with a courtesy copy sent to Plaintiff’s email.  (Gamboa Decl. ¶11.)  The RFAs consist of 13 requests pertaining to facts relevant to the case, including requests seeking admissions of the occurrence of certain events relevant to Plaintiff’s workplace behavior and performance.  (Ex. H to Gamboa Decl.)  Plaintiff’s responses were due by October 17, 2023, which was 30 days after service plus an additional two court days.  (Gamboa Decl. ¶11.)  Plaintiff has not responded by October 17, 2023, and as of the date of this tentative ruling, she still has not provided any responses. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to deem the RFAs admitted. 

Defendant also seeks attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,710.¿ 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 responses, 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 is a graduate of USC School of Law and is an associate at Jackson Lewis P.C.  His hourly rate of $285 is reasonable and in line with prevailing rates in the Southern California legal market.  (See, e.g.,¿Morris v. Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal. App. 5th 24, 32¿(using associate¿hourly rate of $300);¿Gomez v. Fca Us Llc, 2022 Cal. Super. LEXIS 6995 at *8¿(finding¿reasonable senior associate rate of $300¿per hour);¿Curran v. Sch. of the Sacred Heart - San Francisco, 2014 Cal. Super. LEXIS 24939 at *2¿(hourly rate of $395 for associate is¿reasonable);¿Blacksher v. United States Sec. Assocs., 2008 Cal. Super. LEXIS 1464¿(hourly rate of $500 for associate is¿reasonable);¿White Winston Select Asset Fund Series Fund Mp-18 v. Musclepharm Corp., 2021 Cal. Super. LEXIS 65347 at *14¿(hourly rate of $520 for associate is¿reasonable);¿Cox v. Hyundai Motor Am., 2022 Cal. Super. LEXIS 5511 at * 3¿(hourly rate of $300 for associate is reasonable).)  

The Court also concludes the five hours billed for preparing the motion and attendance at the hearing is 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).)  However, the Court declines to award the one hour for preparing the reply brief as there was no opposition.   

Accordingly, the Court will award monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1,425.   

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to deem admitted requests for admissions and for sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,425.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: November 15, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court