Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

MANHEIM INVESTMENTS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

DEALS NEVER LAST, et al.

Defendants. Case No.: 22STCV34424

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED FILED BY PLAINTIFF MANHEIM INVESTMENTS, INC.

 

Plaintiff’s motion to deem requests for admissions, set one admitted is GRANTED as to Defendant Idris Sadiq Ryan.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,200 against Defendant Idris Sadiq Ryan. Sanctions are payable within 15 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, common counts, and violation of Bus. & Prof. Code, section 17200, et seq. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants fraudulently sold a vehicle to Plaintiff which had an outstanding lien. Defendants were not authorized to sell the vehicle. Defendants failed to remit the contract price after Plaintiff discovered the fraud.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On October 27, 2022, Plaintiff Manheim Investments, Inc. filed its complaint against Deals Never Last and Idris Sadiq Ryan.

On March 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to deem requests for admissions (RFAs) admitted against Defendant Idris Sadiq Ryan. The motion is unopposed.

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff moves for an order deeming the RFAs propounded on Defendant Idris Sadiq Ryan.

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 the first set of RFAs on Defendant Ryan on January 22, 2024. (Wegner Decl., ¶3.) Responses were due by February 26, 2024. (Id., ¶4.) To date, Ryan has not served any responses or requested an extension. (Id.)

Because Ryan 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 Ryan failed to serve timely responses to the RFAs. Plaintiff’s request for $1,200 in sanctions is granted. Plaintiff’s counsel requests fees for three hours of attorney time at a rate of $485 and filing fees. Counsel reasonably reduced the sanctions to $1,200 on his own initiative. 

DATED: June 24, 2024

____________________________ 

Hon. Jill Feeney

Judge of the Superior Court