Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC10751, Date: 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC10751     Hearing Date: March 30, 2023    Dept: 25

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

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2023.010 et seq., 1170.8.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm’s Motion for Order Deeming Admitted the Truth of Matters is GRANTED.  Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions in the amount of $660.00 is also GRANTED.

SERVICE: 

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

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

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

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of March 28, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of March 28, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:  

I.                Background

On December 30, 2020, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Eliezer Oviedo aka Eliezer A. Oviedo Henriquez (“Defendant”) seeking damages of $13,235.78.

On August 5, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On January 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order Deeming Admitted the Truth of Matters and Request for Monetary Sanctions (“Motion”).

On February 28, 2023, pursuant to Defendant’s oral motion for a continuance and request to file an opposition, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion to March 30, 2023.  (2-28-23 Minute Order.)

On March 1, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with a Notice of the Court’s February 28, 2023, Ruling and Defendant served Plaintiff with the same notice.

No opposition was 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)).  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 Admissions, Set One, on Defendant on August 12, 2022.  (Cicione Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1.)  One day before the deadline to respond, on September 12, 2022, Defendant’s counsel requested an extension until September 30, 2022, which Plaintiff’s counsel granted.  (Ibid. at ¶ 3.)  Another extension, until October 14, 2022, was granted.  (Ibid. at ¶ 3.)  On October 14, 2022, Plaintiff received unverified responses to the discovery request.  (Ibid. at ¶ 4, Ex. 2.)  On November 17, 2022, Plaintiff sent Defendant a meet and confer letter and requested that Defendant submit verified responses within 10 days of the date of the letter.  (Ibid. at ¶ 5, Ex. 3.)  A second letter was sent on November 29, 2022, requesting responses within 10 days of the date of the letter.  (Ibid. at ¶ 6, Ex. 4.)  According to Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendant has not produced verified responses as of the date of the instant Motion.  (Ibid. ¶ 7.)

The Court’s tentative ruling was posted online for the parties to review prior to the hearing on the Motion. On the day of the hearing, on February 28, 2023, pursuant to Defendant’s oral motion for a continuance and request to file an opposition, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion to March 30, 2023.  (2-28-23 Minute Order.)  However, Defendant has not filed an opposition to the Motion.

Accordingly, the Court makes the following ruling.

“The party to whom requests for admissions are directed shall sign the response under oath, unless the response contains only objections.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.210(a), 2033.240(a).)  “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.”  (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

Here, Defendant has served a combination of unverified responses and objections to the Request for Admissions.  (Cicione Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 2.)  The responses are signed by defense counsel who adds that “Responding party's attorney is currently unable to make contact with responding party and answers on information and belief as follows (See, Brigante v. Huang, (1993) 20. Cal. App 4th 1569)” in response to every Request for Admission.  (Ibid.)  The Court finds that Defendant waived any objections to the Request as the responses were submitted after the deadline to respond.  Furthermore, the unverified responses are tantamount to no responses.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Deeming Admitted the Truth of Matters is GRANTED.

B.    Sanctions

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 2023.030(a), monetary sanctions may be imposed on a party that engages in the misuse of the discovery process.  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.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).)  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, Plaintiff seeks $660 in monetary sanctions as follows: two (2) hours for drafting the motion and attending the hearing, at an hourly rate of $300.00 per hour, plus court filing fees of $60.  (Cicione Decl. ¶ 8.)

Given that Plaintiff’s Motion is granted and the request for attorney’s fees and costs is reasonable, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $660.00.

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff State Farm’s Motion for Order Deeming Admitted the Truth of Matters is GRANTED.  Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions in the amount of $660.00 is also GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.