Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV21930, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV21930    Hearing Date: April 5, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On July 10, 2020, plaintiff Melvin Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Waste Management, Inc.[1] and Does 1 through 50 for injuries sustained when a waste collection truck drove over Plaintiff’s leg.  On August 6, 2020, Plaintiff named Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. dba Athens Services (“Arakelian”) (erroneously sued and served as Athens Services) as Doe 1.  On September 29, 2020, Plaintiff named City of Los Angeles as Doe 2. 

On March 7, 2023, Arakelian (hereinafter, “Defendant”) filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and for an order deeming admitted Requests for Admission, Set Two.  Defendant also seeks sanctions.[2]

The motions are unopposed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories were directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order to compel responses without objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b).)  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), 2030.290, subd. (a).) 

¿     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).) 

III.        DISCUSSION

A.   Defendant’s Discovery Requests

Here, Defendant served Plaintiff with the at-issue written discovery requests on October 11, 2022.  Responses were due by November 15, 2022.  However, Plaintiff had yet to respond to discovery at the time these motions were filed.  (Conley Decls., ¶¶ 2, 3.)  Therefore, all objections to the interrogatories and requests for admission are waived. 

As Defendant properly served the discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two.  In addition, Defendant is entitled to an order deeming admitted Requests for Admission, Set Two, against Plaintiff. 

B.   Monetary Sanctions

Defendant requests imposition of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff. Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions are GRANTED.  As Plaintiff has not filed oppositions, the Court imposes monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $900 (4 hours at Defendant’s counsel’s hourly rate of $195 and $120 in filing fees) to be paid within 30 days of this order.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Defendant Arakelian Enterprises, Inc.’s motions are granted. 

Plaintiff Melvin Hernandez is ordered to provide verified responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two within 30 days of this order. Defendant’s Request for Admissions, Set Two, is deemed admitted against Plaintiff. 

The Court orders Plaintiff to pay to Defendant Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., by and through Defendant’s counsel, monetary sanctions in the amount of $900 within 30 days of this order. 

Moving party to give notice.

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.

       Dated this 5th day of April 2023