Judge Katherine Chilton, Case Number: 22NWLC10799, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22NWLC10799, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWLC10799 Hearing Date: May 11, 2023 Dept: 25

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

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Revadee Veranunt, et al.

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED;

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2023.010 et seq., 1170.8.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Revadee Veranunt, et al.’s Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted is CONTINUED to JUNE 12, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiffs must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the errors discussed herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

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 May 10, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of May 10, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On May 13, 2022, Plaintiffs Revadee Veranunt (“Veranunt”) and Saijai Peng (“Peng”), (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed an action against Defendant Maria Araceli Felix aka Maria A Barraza aka Maria Araceli Barraza aka Maria Barraza aka Maria A Felix aka Maria H Felix aka Maria Felix, Diggby W. Munguia (“Defendant” or “Felix”) for breach of contract and common counts arising out of an alleged lease agreement.

On August 24, 2022, Defendant, in propria persona, filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On January 6, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted and Request for Sanctions. On January 31, 2023, the Court determined that the case is not a “collection hub” matter and transferred the case to Department One for reassignment. (1-31-23 Minute Order.) The case was assigned to Judge Katherine Chilton in Department 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse. (2-3-23 Minute Order.)

On April 7, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Order Deeming its Requests for Admissions Admitted and Request for Monetary 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)). 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).)

Plaintiffs served Requests for Admission, Set One, on Defendant on September 13, 2022. (Wells Decl., Ex. A.) Responses were due by October 23, 2022. (Ibid.) On November 1, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a letter requesting that Defendant submit responses. (Ibid., Ex. B.)

According to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1112(a), a motion must include a (1) notice of hearing, (2) the motion, and (3) “[a] memorandum in support of the motion.” “The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b).)

Here, Plaintiffs have not filed a memorandum in support of the motion, as required by California Rules of Court, rules 3.1112 and 3.1113. The Court continues the hearing on the Motion and allows Plaintiffs an opportunity to file a memorandum of points and authorities.

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, Plaintiffs seek attorney’s fees in the amount of $300.00 and court costs in the amount of $203.70, for a total of $503.70. (Wells Decl.)

The Court finds that the request made in counsel Wells’s declaration is inconsistent with the request for $1,000.00 made in the Notice of Motion. (Ibid.; Mot. p. 2.)

The Court orders Plaintiffs to clarify the amount of sanctions sought and to provide further explanation regarding their calculation of the amount of sanctions.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Moving party is ordered to give notice.