Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case 22STCV16659 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

EDUARDO ANTONIO FUENTES MEDINA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

)

CASE NO.: 22STCV16659

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER DEEMING ADMITTED TRUTH OF FACTS AND IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT RAPID PASADENA SERVICES, LLC AND HER COUNSEL OF RECORD, BORDIN SEMMER LLP

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

March 2, 2023

INTRODUCTION

On May 19, 2022, plaintiff Eduardo Antonio Fuentes Medina (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Amazon.com Services LLC (“Amazon”), Rapid Pasadena Services, LLC (“RPS”), and Mark Ronnie Ramos (“Ramos”) asserting causes of action for (1) general negligence, (2) vicarious liability, (3) negligent hiring, training, retention and supervision, (4) negligent entrustment, and (5) joint enterprise. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges Ramos was driving a motor vehicle in the course and scope of his employment with Amazon and RPS when he collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle on September 24, 2020.

On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for an order deeming admitted Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, against RPS. RPS filed an opposition and Plaintiff filed a reply.

LEGAL STANDARD

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., § 2030.280, subd. (b).) Moreover, failure to timely serve responses waives objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.280, subd. (a).)

If the court finds 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 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., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel served the discovery requests on RPS on November 22, 2022. (Simoudis Decl. ¶ 2.) In his motion, Plaintiff asserts RPS served responses with boilerplate objections. (Mot., p. 3.) For this reason, Plaintiff requests an order deeming admitted Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions against RPS.

RPS argues Plaintiff’s motion is improper because (1) RPS served substantially compliant responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission on February 16, 2023, (2) RPS’s failure to timely serve verified responses was related to Plaintiff’s confusing service and mistake, inadvertence, and/or excusable neglect; and (3) Plaintiff’s motion is entirely unnecessary as RPS’s counsel immediately notified Plaintiff’s counsel that responses would be forthcoming.

Unless the court determines the responding party to a motion “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,” it must order the RFAs deemed admitted. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) However, “[u]nsworn responses [to discovery] are tantamount to no responses at all. [Citation.]” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

Here, RPS submits a copy of its discovery responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One. (Serpik Decl., Ex. 3.) The responses are not signed under penalty of perjury by RPS. Rather, RPS’s own discovery responses acknowledge the lack of verification. On the last page of RPS’s discovery responses, it states “VERIFICATIONS TO FOLLOW”. (See Serpik Decl., Ex. 3.) “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton, supra, at p. 636.) RPS fails to demonstrate substantial compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure.

RPS’s remaining arguments lack merit. Plaintiff was justified in bringing the motion because Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to take the instant motion off calendar if RPS served code-complaint, objection-free responses and provided a timeline as to when Plaintiff could expect the discovery responses. (Gomez Decl., Ex. 5.) However, RPS never provided a timeline to Plaintiff’s counsel. Moreover, RPS provided objection-filled and unverified responses. (See Serpik Decl., Ex. 3.) RPS’s contention that it was confused by a single PDF is not persuasive.

As Plaintiff properly served the discovery request and RPS failed to serve substantially compliant responses, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admission admitted against RPS.¿

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions for preparing and filing the instant motion and reply to RPS’s opposition in the amount of $1,237.00 . Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. Sanctions are imposed against RPS and RPS’s counsel of record, Bordin Semmer LLP, in a total reduced amount of $705.00 for 5 hours at plaintiff’s counsel’s rate of $133.00 and $40.00 in filing fees, to be paid within 30 days of service of this order.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion is granted.

Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One, is deemed admitted against Defendant Rapid Pasadena Services, LLC.¿

The Court orders Defendant Rapid Pasadena Services, LLC and its counsel of record, Bordin Semmer LLP, to pay $705.00 in monetary sanctions to Plaintiff within 30 days of service 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.