Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 17NWLC09744 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 17NWLC09744, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time. **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**

Case Number: 17NWLC09744 Hearing Date: October 4, 2022 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Mid-Century Insurance Company

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Mid-Century Insurance Company’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted, is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $680.00, to be paid within 20 days of notice of this order.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) [OK]

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) [OK]

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) [OK]

OPPOSITION: None filed as of October 2, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of October 2, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On October 30, 2017, Plaintiff Mid-Century Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Carlos Garcia, individually and dba Kevin Landscaping (“Defendant”) for common counts. Plaintiff filed the Complaint because Defendant allegedly failed to pay premiums due on a policy of workers’ compensation insurance issued by Plaintiff. (Compl. p. 3, CC-1.)

On December 27, Defendant, in propria persona, filed an Answer.

On September 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted and Request for Sanctions (“Motion”).

No opposition has been filed.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Requests for Admission

Under Code of Civil Procedure 2033.280(b), failure to respond to requests for admission in a timely manner allows the requesting party to “move for an order that…the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted” by the party that failed to respond. The requesting party’s motion must be granted by the court, “unless [the court] 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).) Since such motion is in response to failure to respond, there is no requirement to meet and confer prior to moving to deem the requests for admission admitted. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007), 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.). By failing to timely respond, the party to whom the requests are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Pro. § 2033.280(a).)

Here, Plaintiff served Requests for Admission, Set One, on Defendant on or about March 24, 2022. (Hettena Decl. ¶ 2; Ex. A.) Defendant did not submit any responses within the time permitted and there was no discussion regarding granting Defendant an extension to respond. (Hettena Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff mailed meet and confer letters to Defendant on April 28, May 23, and July 20, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 4; Ex. B.) Plaintiff also called Defendant to meet and confer telephonically on March 3 and 21, April 28, May 23, and July 20, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 5; Ex. B.) Defendant has failed to respond to the discovery or to Plaintiff’s attempts to meet and confer regarding the Motion. (Ibid. at ¶ 6.)

The Court notes that there is no meet and confer requirement prior to filing the instant Motion. Since Plaintiff has demonstrated that Defendant failed to respond to the Requests for Admission by the deadline, the Court deems the truth of the statements in the Request for Admissions, Set One, admitted.

B. Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone because of that conduct. Misuse of discovery includes “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d)).

Furthermore, courts are obligated to impose monetary sanctions in cases where a “failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Ibid.) Sanctions are calculated based on “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Ibid. § 2023.030(a)).

Here, Defendant has failed to respond to the Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One. Thus, the Court is obligated to impose monetary sanctions.

Plaintiff requests $680.00 in sanctions as follows: attorney’s fees at a rate for $300.00 per hour for one (1) hour of preparing the Motion and one (1) hour to attend the hearing, as well as $60 in filing fees and $20 in order fees. (Hettena Decl. ¶ 7.)

The Court finds Plaintiff’s request for $680 in sanctions to be reasonable. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons:

Moving party to give notice.