Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV25591, Date: 2025-01-08 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: 23STCV25591    Hearing Date: January 8, 2025    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY:  Plaintiffs Miguel Pascual, et al. (collectively “Plaintiffs”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Shahco, Inc., Shahram Saba and Bahram “Bob” Saba (collectively “Defendants”)

            The Court has considered the moving and opposition papers.  

BACKGROUND

             This action arises out of a tenant-landlord relationship. On October 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the operative complaint (the “Complaint”) against Defendants and Does 1 through 10 alleging causes of action for: (1) battery; (2) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act; (3) violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act; (4) violation of Civil Code section 789.3; (5) forcible entry and detainer; (6) wrongful eviction; (7) violation of the tenant anti-harassment ordinance; (8) conversion; (9) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4; (10) breach of the implied warranty of habitability; and (11) negligence.

            On November 18, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to deem the truth of the matters stated in requests for admissions, set one (“RFAs”) to Shahco, Inc., admitted (the “Motion.”) On December 23, 2024, Defendants filed an opposition to the Motion (the “Opposition”).

DISCUSSION

            A discovering party can make a motion to deem as admitted any unanswered requests for admission or any requests answered in a late or unverified response. (Code Civil Procedure (“CCP”), § 2033.280, subd. (b); CCP, § 2033.240, subd. (a) [RFA responses must be signed by responding party under oath]; Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 [unsworn response to RFAs is treated like no response].) These requests are not automatically deemed admitted; the discovering party must make the motion. (CCP, § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

To establish this ground, a movant must show: (1) Proper service (CCP, § 2033.070); (2) Expiration of the deadline for the initial response 30 days after service or on date agreed to by parties (CCP, § 2033.250, subds. (a), (b)); and (3) That (a) the responding party served no response (CCP, § 2033.280, subd. (b)), (b) the propounding party served a late response (CCP, § 2033.280, subd. (b)); or (3) the responding party served an unsworn response. (Appleton, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at 636).

Plaintiff served RFAs upon Defendants on August 22, 2024. (Belisle Decl., Exs. A-B.) As of the filing of the Motion, Defendants had not provided any responses to the discovery. (Belisle Decl., ¶¶ 10-11.) On December 23, 2024, Defendants served verified responses to the RFAs. (Opp., Harvey Decl., Ex. A.)

Thus, as Defendant has since provided the requested discovery responses, the Motion is DENIED as MOOT.

Request for Sanctions

The Court must award sanctions when a party’s response to request for admissions is untimely, and the discovering party makes a motion to deem the requests admitted. (CCP, § 2033.280, subd. (c); Appleton, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at 635-636 [sanctions are mandatory].)

The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subd. (a).)

Even after a party provides discovery responses, a party can keep its motion on calendar and the court has authority to grant sanctions, even if it denies the motion to compel responses “as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part.” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.)

While verified discovery responses have now been provided, sanctions are justified because Defendants’ initial failure to respond compelled Plaintiffs to file this Motion. Plaintiffs request sanctions against Defendants and their counsel of record in the amount of $1,727.57 based upon counsel’s rate of $550/hour for: (1) 1.0 hour drafting the Motion and supporting papers; (2) 1.0 hour reviewing an opposition and preparing a reply; (3) 1.0 hour to attend the hearing on this matter; and (4) $77.57 in filing fees. The Court only awards filing fees in the amount charged by the Court, which is $60.00. In addition, no reply has been filed and attending the hearing will likely not take more than .5 hours. Thus, the request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $1,160.00

            Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED as MOOT. The request for sanctions is GRANTED. Defendants and their counsel of record are ordered to remit sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,160.00 within 20 days of this order.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.