Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 21STCV10639, Date: 2024-05-16 Tentative Ruling

*** Please Note that the Judicial Officer Presiding in Department 25 is Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong ***
If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time. 

Case Number: 21STCV10639    Hearing Date: May 16, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, May 16, 2024

Case Name:                             JOANNA MARTINEZ, et al. vs HIRAM D WEBB

Case No.:                                21STCV10639

Motion:                                   Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted

Moving Party:                         Plaintiffs Joanna Martinez and Delana Jacobs

Responding Party:                   None.

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted is GRANTED.  Plaintiffs’ request for admissions Set One and Set Two are deemed admitted without objections.

Plaintiffs’ Request for Sanctions against Defendant Hiram D. Webb are GRANTED IN THE REDUCED AMOUNT of $1,625.00. 

Defendant Hiram D. Webb is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,625.00 to Plaintiffs Joanna Martinez and Delana Jacobs through their counsel within 30 days of this Court’s order.

BACKGROUND

On March 18, 2021, Plaintiffs Joanna Martinez and Delana Jacobs (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed the complaint against Defendants Hiram D. Webb (“Webb”) and Does 1 through 25 (collectively, “Defendants”). The complaint alleges negligence.

On November 8, 2023, Plaintiffs served Defendants, through their attorney, a Request for Admissions, Set One. (Soto Decl. ¶ 3; Exhibit A.) Defendant Webb’s responses to Request for Admissions, Set One, were due December 12, 2023. To date, Defendant Webb failed to provide responses, which are now one hundred and thirty-two (132) days overdue, failed to request extensions, failed to communicate reasons for delay, and moreover failed to correspond with Plaintiffs altogether.

On March 6, 2024, Plaintiffs served Defendant Webb’s Request for Admission, Set Two. (Soto Decl. ¶ 6; Exhibit B.) Defendant Webb’s responses to Request for Admissions, Set Two, were due April 8, 2024. To date, Defendant Webb failed to provide responses, which are now forty-seven (47) days overdue, failed to request extensions, failed to communicate reasons for delay, and moreover failed to correspond with Plaintiffs altogether.

On April 23, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion. As of May 14, 2024, no opposition or reply has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Plaintiffs’ move this Court for an order that deems Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One and Set Two, admitted and imposes monetary sanctions against Defendant Webb in the amount of $2,175.

OPPOSITION

None.

REPLY

None

ANALYSIS

I.          Deem RFAs Admitted

A.        Legal Standard

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.010.) “Within 30 days after service of requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.250(a).)

When a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admission “[t]he party to whom the request was directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” (Code Civ. Proc § 2033.280(a).) “The requesting party can move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(b).) The court shall issue this order unless the party to whom the request was made serves a response in substantial compliance prior to the hearing on the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction . . . on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated [the] motion.” Id.

Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d) provides that a misuse of the discovery process is “[f]ailing to respond to or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”  Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(h) states that a misuse of the discovery process includes “[m]aking or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or limit discovery.”   “The court may impose a monetary sanction against a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct” under Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a).  A court has discretion to fix the amount of reasonable monetary sanctions.  Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.

B.        Discussion

Merits

Here, on November 8, 2023, Plaintiffs served Defendants, through their attorney, a Request for Admissions, Set One. (Soto Decl. ¶ 3; Exhibit A.) Defendant Webb’s responses to Request for Admissions, Set One, were due December 12, 2023. (Id.) To date, Defendant Webb failed to provide responses, which are now one hundred and thirty-two (132) days overdue, failed to request extensions, failed to communicate reasons for delay, and moreover failed to correspond with Plaintiffs altogether. (Id.)

On March 6, 2024, Plaintiffs served Defendants a Request for Admissions, Set Two. (Soto Decl. ¶ 6; Exhibit B.) Defendant Webb’s responses to Request for Admissions, Set Two, were due April 8, 2024. (Id.) To date, Defendant Webb failed to provide responses, which are now forty-seven (47) days overdue, failed to request extensions, failed to communicate reasons for delay, and moreover failed to correspond with Plaintiffs altogether. (Id.)

Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deem Requests For Admission Set One and Set Two is GRANTED. Requests for Admissions Set One and Set Two are deemed admitted. 

Sanctions  

            Plaintiffs’ counsel seeks sanctions against Defendant Webb in the amount of $2,175.

            Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.250, parties to litigation must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days of service. Failure to serve a timely response waives most objections to responding and allows the requests to be deemed admitted by court order after a motion for deemed admissions. (C.C.P. §2033.280(a) and (b).) 

            Here, Defendants have failed to provide responses, which are now one hundred and thirty-two days (132) overdue and forty-seven (47) days overdue, respectively. (Soto Decl. ¶¶ 3-6.) Thus, the Court finds that sanctions are warranted. However, the Court finds the requested amount to be unreasonable and excessive. Plaintiffs’ counsel seeks $2,175 for 2.5 hours preparing this motion at the rate of $450.00, 1-hour to review Defendants’ opposition and draft a response, 1-hour for the hearing, and $50.00 for the filing fees. The Court strikes the anticipated hour in reviewing the opposition and drafting a reply because the motion is unopposed.

            Thus, the Court GRANTS sanctions IN A REDUCED amount of $1,625.00 for 2.5 hours preparing the motion, 1 hour for the hearing, and $50.00 filing fees.

II.        Conclusion

            In all, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Deem RFAs Set One and Set Two, Admitted. Requests for Admissions, Set One and Set Two are deemed admitted without objections.

            Additionally, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions in a reduced amount of $1,625.00 against Defendant Hiram D. Webb.  

Defendant Hiram D. Webb is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,625.00 to Plaintiffs Joanna Martinez and Delana Jacobs through their counsel within 30 days of this Court’s order.

            Moving parties are ordered to give notice.