Judge Kevin C. Brazile, Case Number: 20STCV34855, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULINGS

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE, DEPARTMENT 20 - JUDGE KEVIN C. BRAZILE

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling without appearing at the hearing by emailing Dept. 20 as soon as possible after reviewing a posted tentative. Though the Court makes every effort to post tentatives at least a day ahead of the hearing, this cannot be guaranteed due to the volume of motions. The email address is smcdept20@lacourt.org. In the subject line include:

1) The name and number of the case;
2) The word "SUBMITTING" or “NOT SUBMITTING” in all caps; and
3) The date of hearing.

In the body of the email include your name, contact information, and the party you represent (i.e. Defendant/moving party; Plaintiff/opposing party). Include all other parties on the email by "cc". Do not include any comments, questions or other information on your email.

PLEASE DO NOT call the court to submit on the tentative or to confirm receipt of your email. If you follow the instructions above, you will receive an automatic reply to your email confirming receipt of your email. If all parties submit, the tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date, the court will sign applicable orders/judgments, if any, and the final ruling will be posted online with the minute order. The moving party shall give notice of the final ruling.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify the other side by email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motion.

Tentative rulings are not invitations nor opportunities, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

_________________________ * ______________________________

RULES ON USING EMAIL THE COURT

No ex-parte communications via email. Always copy all parties in all emails to Court.

Do not use email to file documents in Court. All documents must be filed in the Clerk’s office. Emails are not part of the official Court record. Do not use the email for any other purpose other than submitting/not submitting on tentative rulings or as ordered by the Court. Do not "cc" the Court on emails among the attorneys, parties or others. Do not use the email to ask questions regarding a case. For frequently asked questions go to the Court Information for Department 20 at www.lacourt.org.
The Court will not respond to inappropriate emails.

WARNING: Inappropriate use or misuse of the Court’s email or violation of these or other rules may result in sanctions, including blocking receipt of emails by that sender, after the first misuse/violation.

The Court awards sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,560.00, payable within 30 days.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

On September 11, 2020, Plaintiffs Laura Morales (“Morales”), Ana Barahona (“Barahona”) and Marvin Martinez (“Martinez”) filed this complaint against Defendants Johnathan Benitez (“Benitez”), Viren Ishwarlal Patel (“Viren”), Patel Baluchai Trust (“Trust”), Juan Hernandez (“Juan”), Maria Hernandez (“Maria”) for assault and battery, premises liability, private nuisance, constructive eviction, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

On October 19, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the first amended complaint. Plaintiffs amended the

complaint on December 4, 2020, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to replace a Doe with

Alkakumari Patel (“Alkakumari”). Defendants Viren, Trust, Juan, and Maria filed their answer to

On June 20, 2023, Plaintiffs served Defendants Viren, Alkakumari, Trust, Juan, and Maria (collectively Defendants”) Request for Admissions, Set One. Defendant’s responses were due on July 20, 2023, but Plaintiffs did not receive any discovery responses from Defendants.

On September 15, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted. No opposition is filed.

On October 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Non-Opposition and Reply in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion.

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).) “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Id. at subd. (b).) A motion dealing with the failure to respond, rather than with inadequate responses, does not require the requesting party to meet and confer with the responding party. (Deymer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4 [disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973]. There is no time limit within which a motion to have matters deemed admitted must be made. (Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)

Here, Plaintiffs served Defendants with Request for Admissions, Set One, on June 20, 2023 (Mot., Minsal Decl. ¶2, Ex. 1-10.) Defendants’ responses were due on July 20, 2023. (Minsal Decl. ¶4.) As of the date of this motion, Plaintiffs have not received any responses from Defendants to Plaintiffs’ Request for Admissions, Set One. (Id. at ¶5.) Thus, Plaintiffs are entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admissions, Set One, admitted against Defendants.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a), provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) In addition, unless a responding party serves substantially compliant responses to requests for admission before the hearing, Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c), requires that the court impose a monetary sanction against the party or attorney or both whose failure to serve a timely response necessitated a motion to compel.

Plaintiffs seek $3,060.00 in sanctions against Defendants based on 8 hours of attorney time. Plaintiff’s counsel charges an hourly rate of $375.00 per hour. (Mensal Decl. ¶7.) Plaintiffs’ counsel claims to have spent 3 hours preparing the motion, 1.5 reviewing Defendants’ Opposition, 2 hours preparing a Reply and 1.5 hours to make an appearance at the hearing and spent $60.00 in filing this motion. (Id. at ¶8.) Counsel’s hourly rate of $375.00 is reasonable. However, no opposition is filed, so Plaintiff’s counsel will not incur 1.5 hours in reviewing Defendants’ Opposition and 2 hours preparing a Reply to Defendants’ Opposition. The Court also finds that it will take one hour for Plaintiffs’ counsel to attend the hearing. As a result, a reduction of sanctions is warranted given the motion is unopposed. Accordingly, the reward is reduced by 4 hours or $1,560.00.

Accordingly, the Court awards sanctions in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants and their counsels of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $1,560.00 (4 hours @ $375/hour + $60 filing fee).

The Court awards sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,560.00, payable within 30 days.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.