Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 22STCV14065, Date: 2023-09-26 Tentative Ruling

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Arman Taverdyan, Marina Zakarian F-Taverdyan, Frederik Taverdyan, and ITT Marketing, Inc.

On April 28, 2022, Plaintiff, James Bowers, initiated this action against Defendants, Arman Taverdyan, Marina Zakarian F-Taverdyan, Frederik Taverdyan, and ITT Marketing, Inc., for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident.

On April 24, 2023, Defendants served Plaintiff with Requests for Admissions, Set One. Having not received responses, on June 7, 2023, Defendants filed this motion to deem admitted the Requests for Admissions against Plaintiff.[1] Defendants request sanctions against 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.¿¿

In the context of a motion to deem requests for admissions 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).)¿

Defendants served Plaintiff with the admissions requests on April 28, 2023. At the time of the filing of this motion, Plaintiff has not provided responses. As Defendants properly served the admissions requests and Plaintiff failed to serve responses, the Court finds Defendants are entitled to an order deeming admitted Requests for Admissions, Set One, against Plaintiff.

Defendants seek sanctions against Plaintiff. In the context of a motion to deem requests for admissions 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).)¿ Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff in the sum of $236.50, consisting of 1 hour at defense counsel’s hourly rate and $61.50 in filing fees.

The motion is granted. Defendants’ Requests for Admissions, Set One, is deemed admitted against Plaintiff James Bowers.

The request for sanctions is granted. Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff in the sum of $236.50 to be paid to Defendants, by and through their counsel.

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] Defendants also seek to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the Requests for Admissions. There is no such motion. As such, the Court considers the matter as a request to deem the admissions requests admitted against Plaintiff.

[2] A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54, subd. (c).)