Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JORGE PORRAS CHAVEZ,

Defendant. Case No.: 23STCV18835

PLAINTIFF WESTLAKE SERVICES’ MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE ADMITTED 

Plaintiff’s motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, Set One Admitted is GRANTED.

Sanctions in the amount of $655 are imposed on Defendant 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. Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC alleges that it entered into a contract with Defendant Jorge Porras Chavez to sell a vehicle to Chavez. Chavez failed to make payments as required by the parties’ contract.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On August 8, 2023, Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC filed its Complaint against Defendant Jorge Porras Chavez.

On September 6, 2023, Defendant filed his answer.

On December 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to deem requests for admissions admitted.

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff moves to deem requests for admissions propounded on Defendant admitted.

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).) Sanctions may be imposed for misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., section 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., section 2023.010, subd. (d).) Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 provides that a court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery even if no opposition was filed. 

Here, Plaintiff’s Counsel testifies that he served Defendant with Requests for Admissions on September 12, 2023. (Friedman Decl., ¶2.) On October 27, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel mailed a meet and confer letter to Defendant granting a courtesy extension to November 20, 2023 and informing him that Plaintiff would file a motion to compel if Defendant failed to serve responses. (Id.) To date, Defendant has not served responses. (Id., ¶3.)

Because Defendant failed to provide responses to Plaintiff’s requests 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.

Sanctions here are mandatory because Defendant failed to serve timely responses to Plaintiff’s requests for admissions. Because this motion is substantially the same as the motion heard on April 19, 2024, the Court awards Plaintiff $595 in sanctions for one hour of attorney time at a rate of $595 per hour and filing fees in the amount of $60. 

DATED: April 26, 2024 

____________________________ 

Hon. Jill Feeney

Judge of the Superior Court