Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from alleged discrimination in housing.  Plaintiff Mia Camillah alleges that Defendant Michelle Pine discriminated against Plaintiff by refusing to rent to her because she intended to use Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers as a source of rental payment.  The operative complaint alleges violations of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and related claims based on source of income discrimination in housing.   

On January 10, 2025, Plaintiff served her Requests for Admission (Set One) (“RFAs”) on Defendant.  (See Chernoff Decl. ¶ 4 and Exhibits 1 and 2.)  The RFAs seek 28 admissions regarding key facts relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, including Defendant’s ownership of the subject property, communications with Plaintiff regarding her Section 8 voucher, and Defendant’s policies and practices regarding acceptance of Section 8 vouchers.  

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.250(a), Defendant’s responses to the RFAs were due within 30 days after service, plus 2 court days for electronic service pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(3)(B).  Therefore, Defendant’s responses were due no later than February 13, 2025.  (Chernoff Decl. ¶ 5.)  Defendant did not serve responses by February 13, 2025.  (Id.)  

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion to deem the RFAs admitted.  Plaintiff also seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,858.52 as fees and costs incurred in bringing the instant motion.   

      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 RFAs on Defendant on January 10, 2025.  Responses were due by February 13, 2025.  After Plaintiff filed her motion to deem RFAs admitted, Defendant served her responses.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, set one is now moot.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) 

Plaintiff also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $1,858.52.  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 Defendant failed to timely provide responses, necessitating this motion.¿  

Defendant argues that the Court should deny sanctions because Plaintiff failed to meet and confer prior to filing the motion to deem RFAs admitted.  According to Defendant, had Plaintiff done so, Defendant would have provided the responses, avoiding the necessity for the present motion.  However, no meet and confer is required on a motion to deem RFAs admitted. (See Code Civ. Proc, §§ 2033.010-2033.080.)  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s failure to meet and confer is not a basis to deny the motion for sanctions. 

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.)   

Plaintiff’s counsel has been practicing law for 2 years.  (Chernoff Decl. ¶7.)  He graduated summa cum laude and valedictorian from St. Francis School of Law.  His hourly billing rate is $395.  Defendant does not dispute that this is a reasonable hourly rate.  The Court finds that counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable and consistent with rates charged for attorneys of similar experience in Southern California.   

Counsel spent 2.5 hours preparing the motion and expects to spend one hour reviewing the opposition and preparing the reply and one hour to prepare for and attend the hearing for a total of 4.5 hours.  (Id.)  The Court concludes these hours are reasonable.  The costs of $81.02 for motion and filing fee is also reasonable.   

Accordingly, the Court will award monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1,858.52.   

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted requests for admissions as moot but GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions.  The Court awards sanctions against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $1,858.52.  

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: March 19, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court