Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC10273, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC10273     Hearing Date: October 13, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR ORDER DEEMING TRUTH OF FACTS ADMITTED

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Gelen Akopyan

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION FOR ORDER DEEMING TRUTH OF FACTS ADMITTED

(CCP § 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Gelen Akopyan’s Motion For Order Deeming Truth of Facts Admitted is GRANTED.

Defendant Akopyan’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,160.00, to be paid to Defendant’s counsel within thirty (30) 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:                                                                                  [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                                                                                             [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On December 9, 2020, Plaintiff Liana Vartanyan filed a complaint against Defendants Norayr Ayvazyan, Gelen Akopyan, Nvard Chador, Vage Ayvazyan, and Lilia Ayvazyan (“collectively, “Defendants”) for (1) breach of lease, (2) damage to property beyond ordinary wear and tear, and (3) negligence.  All Defendants filed answers.  Defendant Gelen Akopyan (“Akopyan”) filed a cross complaint against Plaintiff and Plaintiff filed an answer to the cross-complaint.

On September 14, 2022, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Akopyan filed a motion for an order deeming truth of facts admitted as to Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant.  No opposition has been filed.

II.              Legal Standard

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).)  “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The requesting 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.” (Id. at subd. (b).)  A motion dealing with the failure to respond, rather than with inadequate responses, does not require the requesting party to meet and confer with the responding party. (Deymer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4 [disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973]. There is no time limit within which a motion to have matters deemed admitted must be made. (Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)  

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (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 as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Furthermore, it is “mandatory that the Court impose a monetary sanction…on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  

III.            Discussion

On July 27, 2022, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Akopyan served First Set of Requests for Admission on Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant.  (Motion, Khojayan Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1.)  The deadline to provide responses was August 28, 2022.  (Id., ¶ 3.)  Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant failed to serve responses.  (Id.)

As Defendant/Cross-Complainant properly served the request for admissions on Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant and Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendant/Cross-Complainant is entitled to a court order establishing the truth of the matters in the request for admissions.  The motion is thus granted.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant seeks $1,710.00 in monetary sanctions, based on 2.0 hours of attorney time for drafting the motion and writing letters and emails, plus an additional hour to draft a reply and appear at the hearing.  (Id. at ¶ 4).  Counsel’s hourly rate is $550/hour. Defendant/Cross-Complainant further seeks costs of $60.00 for the filing fee.  (Id.).

The Court finds the amount sought to be excessive given the simplicity of the Motion and the lack of opposition and reply.  The Court finds $1,160.00, based on 2.0 hours for drafting the motion, writing letters, etc. and attending the hearing, plus $60.00 for the filing fee, to be reasonable.

As such, Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant is GRANTED.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Akopyan’s Motion for Order Deeming Truth of Facts Admitted is GRANTED.

The Court deems the matters within Defendant/Cross-Complainant Akopyan’s Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Liana Vartanyan.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Vartanyan is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,160.00 to Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s counsel within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.