Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV01635, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01635    Hearing Date: April 5, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO DEEM RFA MATTERS ADMITTED

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies 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 notice of intent to appear is received.”  

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

ALLEGATIONS: 

Erik Sords (Plaintiff) brings this action against LA Sun Partners, Inc. (Defendant) for Breach of Contract and Quantum Meruit. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant refused to pay him some $74,653.67 in commissions for services Plaintiff performed on Defendant’s behalf.

Before the Court is a motion brought by Plaintiff to deem matters in his Request for Admissions (RFA) admitted. Defendant has provided 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).) 

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 Requests for Admission responses necessitated the motion. (Id.)

II.                 MERITS

Background

On February 16, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s Amended Answer filed on December 11, 2023. Defendant’s Amended Answer indicated that Defendant, a corporation, intended to represent itself in pro per. The Court found that striking the Amended Answer with leave to amend was proper, given that California law has long held a corporation cannot represent itself in a civil action.

Between the granting of the motion to strike and the hearing of this motion it appears that Defendant has retained counsel to represent them in this matter. On February, 20 2024, Defendant filed a substitution of attorney stating they are now represented by an Omer Baron. Defendant thereafter filed an Answer and a Cross-Complaint.

Motion to Deem RFA Admitted

On December 18, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel propounded his RFA (Set One) on Defendant via mail. (Kraft Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendant’s responses were due on January 18, 2024, but no responses were received. (Kraft Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) The RFA are attached to the motion as Exhibit A. The proofs of service for both the RFA and this motion show a service address of 14320 Ventura Blvd. Ste #333 Sherman Oaks, CA 91423, which appears to be Defendant’s business address. The Court notes that the RFA are not directed at any particular agent or employee of Defendant.

The Court has concerns with the service of the RFA and this motion, though this is no fault of Plaintiff’s. Given the Court’s ruling striking the pro per Answer and Defendant’s subsequent retaining counsel, the Court is concerned that Defendant and their new counsel have not received notice of the outstanding RFA. This concern is heightened by Defendant’s failure to oppose the last two motions, despite the fact that it appears they are active in the case.

While the Court understands that motions brought pursuant to C.C.P. § 2033.280 must be granted for non-response, it is unclear whether Plaintiff’s service has been adequate to give notice to Defendant. The Court notes the proof of service of the Summons and Complaint reflects personal service at the Ventura Blvd. Address. Despite this, Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time to Serve Answer stated that Defendant only became aware of the suit when informed by a third party. (See October 25, 2023, Ex Parte App.)

Further, Plaintiff’s declaration contains no statement that he communicated with Defendant regarding the outstanding discovery. While the statute does not require meet and confer efforts, they would go some ways to assuaging the Court’s concerns about Defendant’s notice. All of this concern is further compacted by the dire nature of a motion to deem RFA matters admitted. “A deemed admitted order establishes, by judicial fiat, that a nonresponding party has responded to requests for admission by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein.” (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776.)

The Court believes that new counsel for the previously unrepresented defendant should have an opportunity to advise the client to answer the admissions; however, the Court is also sensitie to Plaintiff having to incur more costs to file a new motion, as such, the Motion to Deem RFA Matters Admitted is continued to May 17, 2024 at 9:00 AM. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel regarding discovery prior to the next court date. The Court is confident that whatever issues currently exist with discovery can be resolved informally; however, if this is not the case then the motion to compel may be heard.

--- 

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. 

ORDER 

Erik Sords’ Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Matters Admitted came on regularly for hearing on April 5, 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 CONTINUED TO MAY 17, 2024 AT 9:00 AM.  PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO MEET AND CONFER REGARDING DISCOVERY ISSUES. 

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  April 5, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. Tavelman, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles