Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV00259, Date: 2024-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00259    Hearing Date: October 4, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS MATTERS ADMITTED

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

California Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff) brings this action against Karim Araujo (Defendant). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, an unlicensed electrician, was hired by Plaintiff’s Insured to install a new bathroom fan in the Insured’s apartment. Defendant allegedly cut into the emergency sprinkler lines, causing significant flooding and damage to the Insured’s apartment. Plaintiff seeks to be reimbursed for insurance payments made to rectify Defendant’s alleged negligence.  

Before the Court is a motion by Plaintiff to deem matters in their Request for Admissions (RFA) admitted. Plaintiff states that Defendant has rendered no response to their RFA matters as of the filing of this motion. Defendant has filed no opposition to this motion.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

If a party fails to respond to requests for admission in a timely manner, the requesting party may move for an order that the matters be deemed admitted. (C.C.P. § 2033.280(b).) The requesting party’s motion must be granted by the court unless the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with C.C.P. § 2033.220 prior to the hearing.  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(c).)  By failing to timely respond, the party to whom the requests are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or work product.  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(a).) 

II.                 MERITS

Request to Deem RFA Matters Admitted  

On April 12, 2024, Plaintiff served their RFA on Defendant via mail to Defendant at 1309 W. 56th St. Los Angeles CA 90037. (Espinosa Decl. ¶ 1, Exh. A.) A review of the record shows that this address is the same listed by Defendant in his Answer filed July 17, 2023. Discovery responses were due on May 17, 2024 but Plaintiff received no responses. (Espinosa Decl. ¶ 1.) As of the filing of this motion, Defendant has received no responses. (Id.)

On July 3, 2024, Plaintiff served this motion and accompanying papers on Defendant via mail to the same W. 56th St. address.  

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s unopposed motion to deem RFA matters admitted is GRANTED.

Sanctions

The Court shall impose monetary sanctions for failure to timely respond to requests for admission unless the party acted with substantial justification, or the circumstances render imposition of sanctions unjust. (C.C.P. § 2033.280(c).) The Court must impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney whose failure to serve timely RFA responses necessitated the motion. (Id.)

Here, Plaintiff requests $460 in sanctions in connection with the motion to compel. The Court notes that sanctions are mandatory where a party’s failure to timely respond to RFA necessitates a motion to compel as per C.C.P. § 2033.280(c). Counsel’s declaration request $400 for two hours of work at $200 an hour plus the filing fee.  The Court finds this reasonable and grants the request.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

The Motion to Deem RFA Matters admitted is granted; however, the request for sanctions are denied.

ORDER 

California Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Deem RFA Matters Admitted came on regularly for hearing on October 4, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION TO DEEM RFA MATTERS ADMITTED IS GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF’S RFA NOS. 1-8 ARE DEEMED ADMITTED.

DEFENDANT IS TO PAY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $460.00 DUE IN 30 DAYS.

PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.  

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  October 4, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles