Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 19STCV46005, Date: 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling
PLEASE NOTE:
The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.
Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at sscdept30@lacourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit.
Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.
If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email.
If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.
Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present.
Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.
Case Number: 19STCV46005 Hearing Date: October 31, 2022 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
October 31, 2022 (continued for 10/19/2022)
19STCV46005
Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted as to Defendant Maria Vasquez and Request for Sanctions
Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted as to Defendant Jose Vasquez and Request for Sanctions
DECISION
On October 19, 2022, Defendant Jose Vasquez attending the motions hearing. He requested additional time to serve and file responses to the RFAs. For this reason, the Court continued the motion to today, October 31, 2022. Neither Defendant has filed anything with the Court.
Both motions are granted.
The RFAs are deemed admitted.
The requests for sanctions are denied.
Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.
Background
This is a subrogation action arising from a vehicle collision which took place in December, 2017 and involved Plaintiff’s insured, Yo Han Kal. Plaintiff filed its Complaint against Defendants Jose Vasquez, Maria Vasquez, and Lazaro Medina Rodriguez on December 19, 2019.
Plaintiff filed the instant motions to deem requests for admissions admitted as to Jose Vasquez and Maria Vasquez on June 23, 2022.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Plaintiff served its Requests for Admissions on Jose Vasquez and Maria Vasquez on March 23, 2022. To date, Plaintiff has not received responses.
Opposing Arguments
None.
Legal Standard
Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted
Where there has been no timely response to requests for admissions, a “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 under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).” The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).)
Discussion
Plaintiff moves to deem its Request for Admissions admitted as to Defendant Jose Vasquez and Defendant Maria Vasquez.
Plaintiff is entitled to orders deeming its Request for Admissions admitted. Plaintiff supports its claims with a declaration from Counsel. Plaintiff propounded RFAs, on Jose Vasquez on March 23, 2022. (Corona Decls., ¶4.) After receiving no response, Plaintiff’s Counsel informed Plaintiff via mail that his responses were overdue. (Id., ¶6.) To date, Plaintiff has not received responses to its Request for Admissions. (Id., ¶¶7-9.)
Because Defendants have responded to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Plaintiff’s motions are granted. The genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in Plaintiff’s motions are admitted.
Plaintiff seeks sanctions citing to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.030.
Discovery sanctions may not be imposed under Section 2023.010, even together with Section 2023.010. (City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhouse Coopers ( Court of Appeal, Second District 2022) 2022 WL 12010415.) For these reasons, the requests for sanctions are denied.
