Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 20STCV23610, Date: 2022-10-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV23610 Hearing Date: October 14, 2022 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
October 14, 2022
20STCV23610
Motions to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted filed by Plaintiff Miguel Martinez
DECISION
Plaintiff’s RFAs (Set Two) are deemed admitted.
Sanctions totaling $700 are imposed on Defendant. These sanctions are due within 20 days after the date of this order.
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 an action for negligence arising from a dog attack which took place in April 2020. Plaintiff Miguel Martinez filed his Complaint against Lavasani Shahrokh on June 23, 2020.
Plaintiff filed the instant motion to deem requests for admissions admitted on September 20, 2022.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Plaintiff served his Request for Admissions on Defendant on February 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).)
Sanctions
Sanctions may be imposed for misuse of discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a). ) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), 2033.280(c).)
Discussion
Plaintiff moves to deem its Request for Admissions, Set Two, admitted.
Plaintiff is entitled to orders deeming its Request for Admissions admitted. Plaintiff supports his claims with a declaration from Counsel. Plaintiff propounded RFAs, on Defendant through Defendant’s counsel of record on February 23, 2022. (Almodovar Decl., ¶3.) After receiving no response, Plaintiff’s Counsel emailed Defendant’s Counsel on April 4, 2022 inquiring about the request. (Id., ¶4.) Defendant’s Counsel requested additional time to respond, which was granted. (Id.) After again receiving no response, Plaintiff’s Counsel emailed Defendant’s Counsel three more times on June 3, September 3, and September 8. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has not received responses to his Request for Admissions. (Id.)
Because Defendant has provided no response to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Plaintiff’s motion is granted. The genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in Plaintiff’s motion are admitted.
With respect to sanctions, the Court finds that Defendant has misused the discovery process by failing to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $700 at an hourly rate of $350 an hour for two hours of attorney time preparing the instant motion. The Court awards Plaintiff the requested sanctions.
