Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV23936, Date: 2022-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23936    Hearing Date: September 21, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

            Defendant General Motors Company’s unopposed motion to deem Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted is GRANTED. Defendant General Motors Company’s unopposed motion to deem Requests for Admission, Set Two, admitted is GRANTED.

            On June 28, 2021, Plaintiff Sonya Howard filed suit against General Motors Company (erroneously sued as “General Moters Company”) and Does 1 to 10, alleging violations of the Beverly-Song Consumer Warranty Act relating to two vehicles: 2018 Chevrolet Malibu and 2021 ChevroletTrailblazer.

            Defendant General Motors Company (“Defendants”) filed in the instant motions requesting the Court to deem admitted Requests of Admission, Sets One and Two. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(c), the court shall make the order deeming the truth of the matters admitted unless the responding party serves before the hearing a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Code Civ. Proc § 2033.220. Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.220 requires that each answer either admits, denies or specifies that the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge. The moving party is not required to meet and confer before bringing this action. (Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates, 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395.)

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c), it is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney, or both for the failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission which necessitated the motion.

Discussion

            Here, on February 23, 2022, Defendant served on Plaintiff two separate Requests for Admissions; Set One addressed the 2018 Malibu and Set Two addressed the 2021 Trailblazer. (See Motion re: RFA Set One, Shugart Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. A; Motion re: RFA Set Two, Shugart Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. A.) Responses to both of these discovery requests were due on April 4, 2022. (See Motion re: RFA Set One at pg. 3, Shugart Decl. ¶ 6; Motion re: RFA Set Two at pg. 3, Shugart Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendant asserts that Plaintiff failed to timely serve verified responses to its either discovery requests. (See Motion re: RFA Set One at pp. 3-4, Shugart Decl. ¶ 7; Motion re: RFA Set Two at pp. 3-4, Shugart Decl. ¶ 7.) On May 27, 2022, Defendant attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff before filing the instant motions as an attempt to retrieving the outstanting responses. (See Motion re: RFA Set One at pg. 3, Shugart Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. B; Motion re: RFA Set Two at pg. 3, Shugart Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. B.) Moreover, since serving the meet and confer letter, Defendant contends that Plaintiff has not provided Code compliant responses.  (See Motion re: RFA Set One at pp. 3-4, Shugart Decl. ¶ 8; Motion re: RFA Set Two at pp. 3-4, Shugart Decl. ¶ 8.) Consequently, for failing to serve timely, Code compliant responses, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has waived any objections to both discovery requests. (See Motion re: RFA Set One at pp. 4-5; Motion re: RFA Set Two at pp. 4-5.)

            It is noted that Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to the instant motions.

The Court finds that Defendant properly served Requests for Admissions, Set One and Set Two on Plaintiff. (See Motion re: RFA Set One, Shugart Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. A; Motion re: RFA Set Two, Shugart Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. A.) Because the time to respond has expired and Plaintiff has failed to serve Code compliant and verified responses to these discovery requests, the Court finds that the instant motions have merit. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).)

            In light of the foregoing, the motions are granted. Requests for Admissions, Sets One and Two, are deemed admitted. While sanctions are mandatory under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(c), Defendant’s motions do not set forth a requested monetary amount. Thus, the Court declines to issue monetary sanctions in this instance.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  September    , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.