Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 21STLC08458 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC08458, Date: 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC08458 Hearing Date: December 5, 2022 Dept: 25

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

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s. London

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s. London’s Motion to Determine Requests for Admissions of Facts and Genuineness of Documented Deemed Admitted, is GRANTED. The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $340.00.

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 November 30, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of November 30, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On November 29, 2021, Plaintiff Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s. London (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Jake Lawrence Udell (“Defendant”) for conversion and money had and received. On March 8, 2022, Defendant, in propria persona, filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On October 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Determine Requests for Admissions of Facts and Genuineness of Documented Deemed Admitted (“Motion”). On October 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed Amended Proof of Service indicating that Defendant had been served with the moving papers via electronic transmission. (10-7-22 Proof of Service.)

On October 3, 2022, Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories (Set One) and a Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Production of Documents (Set One), which are scheduled for hearing on December 8, 2022.

On November 2, 2022, the Court noted that the self-represented Defendant had been improperly served by electronic transmission and continued the hearing to allow Plaintiff additional time to properly serve Defendant. (11-2-22 Minute Order.)

On November 3, Plaintiff filed proof that the Notice of Continuance of the hearing on the Motion had been served on Defendant by mail. (11-3-22 Notice of Continuance.) Plaintiff also filed a Second Amended Proof of Service indicating that Defendant had been served with the moving papers by mail. (11-3-22 Second Amended Proof of Service Re: Motion to Deem Requests for Admission of Fact Admitted.)

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 December 4, 2021. (Sperling Decl. ¶ 2; Ex. A.) Verified responses were due by January 4, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 3.) On July 12, 2022, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant and asked for responses to the discovery propounded on Defendant by July 22, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 4; Ex. B.) As of the date of the instant Motion, Defendant has not provided any responses. (Ibid. at ¶ 5.)

On November 2, 2022, the Court noted that Plaintiff has demonstrated that Defendant failed to respond to the Requests for Admission by the deadline. (11-2-22 Minute Order.) However, the Court found that the self-represented Defendant has been improperly served with the moving papers by electronic transmission and, thus, continued the hearing to allow Plaintiff additional time to properly serve the Defendant. (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1010.6(a)(2)(A)(ii), (c), (d), (e).)

Given that Plaintiff has properly served Defendant with the moving papers and Defendant has failed to respond to the Requests for Admission, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.

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)).

Plaintiff requests $340.00 in sanctions as follows: attorney’s fees at a rate for $280.00 per hour for one (1) hour of preparing the Motion and $60 in filing fees. (Sperling Decl. ¶ 7.)

Given that the Court grants the Motion and finds Plaintiff’s request to be reasonable, the Court also grants Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $340.00.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons: Plaintiff Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s. London’s Motion to Determine Requests for Admissions of Facts and Genuineness of Documented Deemed Admitted, is GRANTED. The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $340.00 to be paid by Defendant to Plaintiff’s counsel within twenty (20) day’s notice hereof.

Moving party to give notice.