Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: BC17477, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC17477    Hearing Date: July 20, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     July 20, 2023                          TRIAL DATE:  October 17, 2023

CASE:                                Jose Luis Gonzalez v. Jose Echevarria, et al.

CASE NO.:                 BC717477

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Jose Echevarria

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          BACKGROUND

            On August 10, 2018, Plaintiff, Jose Luis Gonzalez, filed this action against Defendants, Jose Echevarria (“Echevarria”), Jasmine Ruiz, Juan Gonzalez, and Ilario Ruiz, for injuries arising from a multi-vehicle collision.

On December 9, 2022, Echevarria served Plaintiff with Requests for Admissions, Set One.  The deadline for Plaintiff to respond was January 10, 2023.  Plaintiff never requested an extension.  Having received no responses, on March 20, 2023, Echevarria filed this motion to deem admitted the Requests for Admissions against Plaintiff.  Alternatively, Echevarria requests terminating sanctions.  Echevarria also requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.

The motion is unopposed.

II.        LEGAL STANDARDS

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).)   

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).)

            Monetary Sanctions

            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).) 

III.      DISCUSSION

Echevarria served Plaintiff with the admissions requests on December 9, 2022.  To date, Plaintiff has not provided responses.  (See Declaration of Kathryn T. Camerlengo.)  As Echevarria properly served the discovery requests and Plaintiff failed to serve responses, the Court finds Echevarria is entitled to an order deeming admitted Requests for Admissions, Set One, against Plaintiff.  Having so found, the Court does not reach Echevarria’s alternative request for terminating sanctions.

Monetary Sanctions

¿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 $450, consisting of 2 hours at counsel’s hourly rate and $60 in filing fees.

IV.       CONCLUSION 

The motion is granted. 

Defendant Jose Echevarria’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, is deemed admitted against Plaintiff Jose Luis Gonzalez. 

The request for sanctions is granted.  Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $450 to Defendant Jose Luis Gonzalez, by and through his counsel.

Responses are to be provided and sanctions are to be paid within 30 days of this order.

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   July 20, 2023                                 ___________________________________

                                                                                    Kerry Bensinger

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            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.