Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 20STCV08946, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Sinanian Development, Inc. dba Sinanian and LA Main Affiliates, LLC

On March 5, 2020, Plaintiff, Travis Sheffield, filed this action against Defendants, Sinanian Development Inc. dba Sinanian (“Sinanian”), LA Main Affiliates, LLC (“LA Main Affiliates”), and Does 1 through 100 for premises liability and negligence. On May 11, 2020, Plaintiff added defendants Five Star Plastering, Inc. (“FSP”) as Doe 1 and California Access Scaffold as Doe 2 (“CAS”). Plaintiff alleges that on June 28, 2017, he tripped and fell on a sidewalk surface owned maintained, controlled, possessed, repaired, inspected, operated, designed, built, managed and cleaned by Defendants.

On May 23, 2023, Sinanian and LA Main Affiliates (hereafter, “Moving Defendants”) served Plaintiff with Requests for Admissions, Set One. The deadline for Plaintiff to respond was June 24, 2023. Plaintiff never requested an extension. Having received no responses, on July 14, 2023, Sinanian filed this motion to deem admitted the Requests for Admissions against Plaintiff. Sinanian also requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.

On July 21, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration stating that the motion and request for sanctions should be denied because Plaintiff served responses. The discovery responses, which are attached to the declaration, are signed by Plaintiff’s counsel, but have not been verified by Plaintiff.

If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order that the truth of the matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)¿ Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.280, subd. (a).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 is a general statute authorizing the Court to impose discovery sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process,” which includes (without limitation) a variety of conduct such as: making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; and unsuccessfully and without substantial justification making or opposing a motion to compel or limit discovery.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)¿¿

If sanctions are sought, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that the notice specify the identity of the person against whom sanctions are sought and the type of sanction requested, that the motion be supported in the points and authorities, and the facts be set forth in a declaration supporting the amount of any monetary sanction.¿

If the court finds that a party has unsuccessfully made or opposed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or inspection demands, the court “shall impose a monetary sanction . . . unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) ¿

In the context of a motion to deem requests for admission admitted, it is mandatory that the court impose monetary sanctions on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to the request necessitated the motion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Moving Defendants served Plaintiff with the requests for admissions on May 23, 2023. At the time of the filing of this motion, Plaintiff had not provided responses. (See Declaration of Amit Palta.) On July 21, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration showing that responses were served to Moving Defendants on that date. However, the responses are not verified by Plaintiff. Responses to RFAs must be verified by the responding party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 446.) “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Effectively, Plaintiff has yet to provide responses to the admissions requests.[1]

As Moving Defendant properly served the discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to serve responses, the Court finds Moving Defendants are entitled to an order deeming admitted Requests for Admissions, Set One, against Plaintiff.

¿In the context of a motion to deem requests for admission admitted, it is mandatory that the court impose monetary sanctions on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to the request necessitated the motion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

As Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses to this motion to deem requests for admission admitted, sanctions are mandatory. The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $399.65, consisting of 2 hours at counsel’s hourly rate and $61.65 in filing fees.

Moving Defendants’ Requests for Admissions, Set One, is deemed admitted against Plaintiff Travis Sheffield.

The request for sanctions is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $399.65 to Moving Defendants, by and through their counsel.

Responses are to be provided and sanctions are to be paid within 20 days of this order.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

[1] However, if at the hearing, Plaintiff furnishes evidence that verified responses have been served, the Court will deny the motion and consider only the request for sanctions.