Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 21STCV27498, Date: 2023-05-01 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 21STCV27498    Hearing Date: May 1, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants 91 Enterprise, LLC; Asher Elimelech; and Gilad Erlich (collectively, “Defendants”)

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of an employment relationship.  The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1) failure to pay minimum wage; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3) failure to pay wages for missed rest periods; (4) failure to pay wages when due; (5) failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements; and (6) violation of the Unfair Competition Law. 

On February 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed three motions for an order deeming his Requests for Admissions, Set One (the “RFAs”) admitted against Defendants (collectively, the “Motions”). 

DISCUSSION

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2033.280, subdivision (a), where requests for admission are propounded on a party and that party fails to serve a timely response, that party waives any objection to the requests.  (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (a).)  The requesting 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, as well as for a monetary sanction.  (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  The court must grant a motion to have admission requests deemed admitted where responses have not been served prior to the hearing, or, if such responses were served, they were not in substantial compliance with CCP section 2033.220.  (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated the motion.  (Id.; see Stover v. Bruntz (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 19, 31-32.)  Unverified responses are tantamount to no responses at all.  (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

Plaintiff served the RFAs on Defendants on September 28, 2022.  (Declaration of Charmaine L. Huntting (“Huntting Decl.”) ¶ 2, Exhibit A.)  Defendants provided unverified responses on November 30, 2022 but failed to provide verifications before Plaintiff filed the Motions.  (See Huntting Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.)  Defendants provide evidence that they provided verified responses on March 31, 2023.  (See Declaration of Benjamin Davidson (“Davidson Decl.”) ¶ 5.)

            Because Defendants submitted responses to the RFAs before the hearing on the Motions, the Court DENIES the Motions as to their requests for orders deeming the RFAs admitted.  Nonetheless, as CCP section 2033.280, subdivision (c) requires that the Court impose a monetary sanction against the parties who necessitated the Motions, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions. 

Monetary Sanctions

            Plaintiff requests $1,594.50 in monetary sanctions in connection with each Motion.  (See Huntting Decl. ¶ 8.)  This amount represents: (1) 1.1 hours to draft each Motion; at a rate of $495 per hour; (2) an anticipated two hours preparing for the hearing; and (3) the $60 filing fee.  (Id.)

            The Court exercises its discretion and awards Plaintiff monetary sanctions against Defendants and their counsel in the reasonable amount of $2,160.00, which represents: (1) 1 hour drafting each Motion; (2) one hour preparing for the hearing on the Motions collectively, at a rate of $495 per hour; and (3) the $60 filing fees.  (Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1034.)  This amount is to be paid within 20 days of the date of this order.

 Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

         Dated this 1st day of May 2023