Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: BC723462, Date: 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC723462    Hearing Date: March 17, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

MICHAEL GOLDEN, et al.,

                   Plaintiffs,

          vs.

 

ERIK LIMON, et al.,

 

                   Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

     CASE NO.: BC723462

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ORDER TO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS SPECIFIED IN PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET THREE, ADMITTED

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

March 17, 2023

 

I.            INTRODUCTION

On September 27, 2018, plaintiffs Michael Golden and Samantha Mondrosch (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this wrongful death and survivor action against defendants Erik Limon (“Limon”) and Jenevieve B. Hegedus (“Defendant”) arising from the death of Tracy E. Adams (“Decedent”).  Plaintiffs allege that Decedent was riding her bicycle on September 6, 2017, when Limon hit her with his vehicle and drove away without rendering assistance.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendant then hit Decedent a second time with her vehicle and also drove away without rendering assistance.  

On May 23, 2022, Plaintiffs served Requests For Admission, Set Three, on Defendant.

On November 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed this motion for an order to deem admitted the truth of the matters in the Requests for Admission, Set Three, against Defendant.

The motion is unopposed.

II.          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).)¿ 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).)[1]

III.        DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel served the discovery request on Defendant on May 23, 2022.  To date, Defendant has not responded to the request.  (Feldman Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.)  As Plaintiffs properly served the discovery request and Defendant failed to respond, the Court finds Plaintiffs are entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admission, Set Three, admitted against Defendant. 

IV.         CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ motion is granted. 

Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission, Set Three, is deemed admitted against Defendant Jenevieve B. Hegedus. 

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 17th day of March 2023

 

 

 

 

Hon. Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 



[1] Plaintiffs do not request imposition of monetary sanctions against Defendant.