Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 21STLC08740 2022-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC08740, Date: 2022-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC08740 Hearing Date: November 21, 2022 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED AND 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 §§ 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Insurance Company’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted, is GRANTED. The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $460.00.

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 16, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of November 16, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On December 10, 2021, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Eddie Nieves aka Edward Nieves (“Defendant”) for subrogation. The action arose out of an alleged automobile accident on December 24, 2020, between Defendant, on the one hand, and an individual insured by Plaintiff’s insurance policy, on the other hand. (Compl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff compensated insured in the amount of $12,389.79 and filed the instant action to recover damages from Defendant. (Compl. pp. 2-3.)

On April 25, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On October 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and Request for Sanctions (“Motion”). Plaintiff informs the Court that the Motion has been submitted on the moving papers and that Plaintiff will not appear at the hearing. (Mot. p. 2.)

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).) Unverified responses are equivalent to “no response at all” and therefore not in “substantial compliance” with § 2033.240(a). (Allen-Pacific, Ltd. v. Sup.Ct. (Chan) (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1551.)

Here, Plaintiff served Requests for Admission, Set One, on Defendant on July 20, 2022. (Gavrilescu Decl. ¶ 1; Ex. A.) Verified responses were due by August 23, 2022. (Ibid. at ¶ 2.) On September 2, 2022, Plaintiff sent a letter to defense counsel informing that the deadline for responding to the discovery request had passed and all objections had been waived. (Ibid. at ¶ 3; Ex. B.) On September 15, 2022, after the deadline to respond has passed, Defendant served responses which contained unverified responses to Requests #1 and #9 and blanket objections to Requests #2-8. (Ibid. at ¶ 4; Ex. C.) As of the date of the instant Motion, Defendant has not served compliant responses. (Ibid. at ¶ 5.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that Defendant failed to provide verified responses to Requests for Admission #1 and #9 and has improperly objected to Requests for Admission #2-8. Although Defendant has provided responses, the Court finds that the responses provided are not in substantial compliance with § 2033.220 because the unverified responses are the equivalent of no responses and Defendant’s failure to respond on time had resulted in a waiver of objections.

For this reason, 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)).

Plaintiff requests $460.00 in sanctions as follows: attorney’s fees at a rate for $200.00 per hour for two (2) hours of bringing the instant Motion and $60 in filing fees. (Gavrilescu Decl. ¶ 6.) The Court finds this request to be reasonable.

Given that the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted, the Court also grants sanctions in the amount of $460.00.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons:

Moving party to give notice.