Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 21STCV42481, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42481    Hearing Date: March 20, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Dr. Payam Vahedifar and Shadi Vahedifar

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Bita Paya, Brian Paya and the Paya Family Trust (collectively, “Responding Defendants”)

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

BACKGROUND

            This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship.  Plaintiffs’ complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) violation of Civil Code section 1950.5; (2) statutory fraud or deceit and common law fraud; (3) intentional misrepresentation; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (5) fraudulent concealment; (6) negligence; (7) negligence per se; (8) conversion; (9) breach of fiduciary duty; (10) breach of contract; (11) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (12) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq; (13) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (14) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (15) unjust enrichment and restitution; (16) intentional interference with contractual relations; and (17) conspiracy to breach contract and to interfere with contractual relations. 

Plaintiffs move to deem Requests for Admissions (“RFAs”), set one, admitted against Responding Defendants.  Plaintiffs electronically served the subject discovery separately on each of the three Responding Defendants on June 29, 2023. Responses were due no later than August 1, 2023 pursuant to CCP § 2031.010.  Responding Defendants failed to timely serve their responses and did not request an extension.  Responding Defendants responded on September 21, 2023, denying each request on the ground that they lacked sufficient information.  

DISCUSSION

If a party fails to provide a timely response to an RFA, the party waives any objection to the requests.  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(a).)  Moreover, “[t]he 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. . . .”  (C.C.P. § 2033.280(b).) 

            Defendants argue in opposition that the proper legal mechanism here is a motion to compel further responses, not a motion to deem admitted, because Defendants served responses to the RFAs.  The Court agrees; therefore, the Motions are DENIED.

Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiffs seek sanctions in the amount of $2,184.95.  Sanctions are mandatory under CCP § 2033.280, but the amount must be reasonable.  Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel seeks sanctions to compensate him for 4 hours at an hourly rate of $500.00 plus a $60.00 filing fee and $1.65 handling fee for each of the three motions.  The Court finds counsel’s request excessive and awards sanctions of $1,184.95 instead, corresponding to two hours of attorney time plus applicable costs.  The request for sanctions is therefore GRANTED in part.

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 20th day of March 2024