Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

JOSE HERNANDEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

STRUCTURAL CONCRETE GROUP, INC., et al.

Defendants. Case No.: 23STCV05937

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE ADMITTED AS TO STRUCTURAL CONCRETE GROUP, INC. FILED BY PLAINTIFF JOSE HERNANDEZ

 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, Set One admitted as to Defendant Structural Concrete Group, Inc. is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,660 jointly and severally against SCG and its Counsel of Record. 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 disability discrimination, hostile work environment, discrimination, and battery. Plaintiff Jose Hernandez alleges that he was an employee of Defendant Structural Concrete Group, Inc. working under his supervisor, Defendant Ismael Gutierrez. Gutierrez engaged in unwelcome touching and striking of employees. When Plaintiff asked Gutierrez to stop this behavior, Gutierrez began striking Plaintiff’s head and private areas. Plaintiff took time off from work due to stress and was terminated on the date he was supposed to return to work.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On March 17, 2023, Plaintiff Jose Hernandez filed his Complaint against Defendants Structural Concrete Group, Inc. and Ismael Gutierrez.

On March 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to deem requests for admissions (RFAs) admitted. The motion is unopposed.

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff moves for an order deeming the RFAs propounded on Defendant Structural Concrete Group, Inc. (SCG)

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 on August 31, 2023. (Osorio Decl., ¶3.) Responses were due by October 3, 2023. (Id., ¶4.) On October 2, 2023, SCG’s counsel requested an extension to November 3, 2023 which Plaintiff’s counsel granted. (Id., ¶5.) SCG requested a second extension on October 31, 2023 which Plaintiff denied. (Id., ¶6.) As of the date this motion was filed, SCG has not served RFA responses. (Id., ¶7.) 

Because SCG 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 SCG failed to serve timely responses to the RFAs. Plaintiff’s request for $1,660 in sanctions for three hours of attorney time at a rate of $400 and filing fees is granted jointly and severally against SCG and its Counsel of Record. 

DATED: May 15, 2024

____________________________ 

Hon. Jill Feeney

Judge of the Superior Court