Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

608 MATEO, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ARTS DISTRICT PATIENTS COLLECTIVE, INC., et al.

Defendants. Case No.: 20STCV36130

PLAINTIFF 608 Mateo, LLC’S MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

 

Plaintiff’s motion to deem requests for admissions admitted is GRANTED as to Defendant Jennemann.

Sanctions in the amount of $1,087.50 are imposed against Jennemann and are payable 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.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action for breach of contract and breach of written warranty. Plaintiff alleges in April 2018, it leased the premises located at 608 S. Mateo Street and 609 Imperial Street, Los Angeles, CA to Defendants. The parties amended the lease in June 2018 and July 2018. Defendants breached the lease by failing to pay rent. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On October 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to deem the requests for admissions (“RFAs”) propounded on Defendant Jennemann admitted.

DISCUSSION 

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), “if a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response,” the propounding “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).) 

Monetary sanctions are mandatory against a party, attorney, or both whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).) 

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that he propounded a second set of RFAs on Jennemann on July 19, 2023. (Revitz Decl., ¶3.) The responses were due on August 23, 2023. (Id., ¶5.) To date, Jennemann has not responded. (Id., ¶6.)

Because Jennemann failed to provide any response to Plaintiff’s RFAs, the request is granted. The genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in Plaintiff’s motion are admitted.

Sanctions are mandatory here because Jennemann failed to serve timely responses to the RFAs. Court awards Plaintiff $1,087.50 in sanctions for 2.5 hours of attorney time. 

DATED: December 13, 2023 

____________________________ 

Hon. Jill Feeney

Judge of the Superior Court