Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV02621, Date: 2024-07-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV02621    Hearing Date: July 12, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTIONS TO DEEM RFA 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: 

Sujith Thomas (Plaintiff) brings this action against Jose Melgar (Defendant) for claims arising out of an alleged October 11, 2022 motor vehicle incident. Plaintiff alleges he was injured by virtue of Defendant’s negligent operation of a motor vehicle on the I-5 Freeway near Burbank.

Plaintiff now moves to deem matters in his Request for Admissions (RFA) admitted, by virtue of Defendant’s nonresponse. 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).) 

No opposition was filed.  Failure to file an opposition to the motion indicates the other parties' acquiescence that the motion is meritorious. CRC Rule 8.54(c)

II.                 MERITS

Request to Deem RFA Matters Admitted  

On March 27, 2024, Plaintiff served his RFA on Defendant via email to Defendant’s counsel. (Rashtian Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Discovery responses were due on April 26, 2024 but Plaintiff received no responses. (Rashtian Decl. ¶ 5.) On May 2 and May 3, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent two emails to Defendant’s counsel requesting responses to the RFA. (Rashtian Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. B.) As of the filing of this motion, Defendant has received no responses. (Rashtian Decl. ¶ 5.)

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

Here, Plaintiff requests no sanctions in connection with the three motions 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).  Accordingly, the Court declines to grant sanctions.

--- 

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 

Sujith Thomas’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Matters Admitted came on regularly for hearing on July 12, 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.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF IS TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  July 12, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. Tavelman, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles