Judge Jill Feeney, Case Number: 23STCV02835, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Sanctions in the amount of $2,316.75 are imposed jointly and severally on Defendant Land Rover Encino and its Counsel of Record. Sanctions are payable within 15 days after the date of this order.

This is an action for violations of the Song Beverly Act. Plaintiff alleges that in 2016, she purchased a certified pre-owned 2016 Land Rover Discovery. The purchase came with the remaining time/mileage balances of the vehicle’s warranties along with additional warranties it had as a certified pre-owned vehicle. The vehicle was delivered to Plaintiff with serious defects, including a sudden lack of acceleration, low coolant light illumination, transmission jerking, and other defects. Defendants were unable to repair the vehicle despite a reasonable number of attempts. Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC did not repurchase or replace the vehicle.

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 RFAs on LR Encino on August 10, 2023. (Saeedian Decl., ¶6.) The responses were due on September 11, 2023. (Id., ¶7.) Plaintiff has not received LR Encino’s responses to RFAs as of the date this motion was filed. (Id., ¶8.)

In opposition, LR Encino’s counsel testifies that after Plaintiff granted two extensions, he inadvertently did not calendar the new response date of October 10, 2023. (Cho Decl., ¶¶3-5.) LR Encino served verified responses on October 27, 2023. (Id., ¶6.)

A party to whom requests for admissions are propounded waives his right to object to the requests if he failed to serve a timely response. However, a party may be relieved of that waiver if “(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230. (2) The plaintiff’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., section 2033.280.)

The statutory language “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect” in the discovery statute should be interpreted using the same general principles developed in application of the identical language in section 473, subdivision (b). (Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 275.) Although the party moving for relief under section 473 has the burden to show that the mistake, inadvertence, or neglect was excusable, any doubts as to that showing must be resolved in favor of the moving party. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420.)

Here, LR Encino’s counsel testifies that he inadvertently failed to calendar the new RFA deadline after Plaintiff granted extensions. Therefore, LR Encino’s failure to provide timely responses was due to its counsel’s mistake.

Plaintiff argues that LR Encino did not substantially comply with Code Civ. Proc., section 2033.220 because the late response contained objections and verifications were not served until after the late responses were served.

The courts have ruled that substantial compliance is dependent on the meaning and purpose of the statute. (Freeman v. Vista de Santa Barbara Associates LP (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 791, 793.) For example, a proposed response to requests for admission are substantially compliant where the responses were verified, contained responses to a majority of responses, and were served before the hearing on a motion to compel. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 782.) Such responses may not have complied with all statutory requirements, but constituted facially good-faith efforts to respond to the requests for admissions that is substantially code compliant. (Id.)

Here, Plaintiff argues that the responses are not substantially code compliant because LR Encino responded to the RFAs with objections. Additionally, numbers 7, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36 with only objections and failed to admit, deny, or specify that Defendant lacks sufficient information to provide a response. Although LR Encino provided incomplete responses to half of the RFAs, LR Encino did provide objections to this half and provided substantive responses to the other half. Code Civ. Proce, 2033.280 does not

require perfect compliance. Here, LR Encino’s responses are still substantially code compliant despite being incomplete. LR Encino’s motion for relief from waiver of objections is granted.