Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC05027, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC05027    Hearing Date: October 31, 2023    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Tuesday, October 31, 2023

Case Name:                             STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. EDUARDO MARTINEZ CRUZ and DOES I through V, inclusive

Case No.:                                22STLC05027

Motion:                                   Motion for an Order Deeming Requests for Admissions Admitted

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Responding Parties:                None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:           Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s motion is GRANTED.

The truth of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, are hereby deemed admitted against Defendant Eduardo Martinez Cruz.

Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiff sanctions of $660.

BACKGROUND

On August 2, 2022, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Eduardo Martinez Cruz (“Cruz”) and Does I through V, inclusive, for damages.

The Complaint alleges the following. Plaintiff is an insurance company that insured a vehicle owned by its insured The Estate of Carol Cartwright (“Insured”). (Compl., ¶¶ 1, 5.) On or about October 31, 2021, the defendants (among other things) negligently and carelessly drove their vehicle, causing it to collide with the Insured’s Vehicle. (Compl., ¶¶ 5,7.) As a result of the defendants’ negligence, the Insured’s vehicle was damaged in the total sum of $18,204.91. (Compl., ¶ 8.) Pursuant to the insurance policy between Plaintiff and the Insured, Plaintiff paid for those damages and, therefore, is subrogated to all the Insured’s rights against the defendants. (Compl., ¶ 8.)

On February 17, 2023, Cruz filed his Answer.

On September 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to deem the Requests for Admissions, Set One, it propounded on Cruz admitted.

As of October 27, 2023, no opposition has been filed.

A jury trial is scheduled for January 30, 2024.

MOVING PARTY’S POSITION

            Plaintiff seeks an order deeming its Requests for Admissions, Set One, it propounded on Cruz, admitted. Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that on March 3, 2023, her office served Defendant with the discovery, but as of the date of the filing of the motion on September 6, 2023, Plaintiff has yet to receive responses. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions of $660 against Cruz for necessitating this motion.

OPPOSITION

            None.

REPLY

            None.

ANALYSIS

I.          MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

A.        Legal Standard

“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, unless on motion of the requesting party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).)

“The party requesting admissions and the responding party may agree to extend the time for service of a response to a set of admission requests, or to particular requests in a set, to a date beyond that provided in Section 2033.250 [above].” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.260, subd. (a).) “This agreement may be informal, but it shall be confirmed in a writing that specifies the extended date for service of a response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.260, subd. (b).)

If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, a “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 (commencing with section 2023.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

B.        Discussion

Plaintiff’s counsel attests to the following facts in support of the instant motion. On March 3, 2023, her office served Cruz the Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One (“RFAs”). (Motion, declaration of Christina Cicione (“Cicione Decl.”), ¶ 2; Exhibit A – a copy of the RFAs.) An extension was requested and granted, with the final extension deadline to serve the responses being April 7, 2023. (Cicione Decl., ¶ 2.) Subsequently, Defense counsel served responses to the RFAs, but the responses were unverified. (Cicione Decl., ¶ 2.) Therefore, on July 24 and August 8, 2023, counsel’s office sent two meet and confer letters to defense counsel requesting verified responses. (Cicione Decl., ¶ 3; Exhibit B – a copy of the meet and confer letters.) However, as of the filing date of the motion on September 6, 2023, Plaintiff had yet to receive the verified responses. (Cicione Decl., ¶ 3.)

            The RFAs asked Cruz to admit the following.

1.      Admit that at the time of the INCIDENT, you were driving a motor vehicle. (For purposes of these requests, the term INCIDENT refers to the accident upon which this action was based).

2.      Admit that at the time of the INCIDENT, you failed to drive with reasonable care.

3.      Admit that your driving was the sole cause of the COLLISION with plaintiff’s INSURED VEHICLE. (For purposes of these requests, the term COLLISION refers to the motor vehicle accident which is the basis of the INCIDENT; the term INSURED VEHICLE refers to the other vehicle involved in the INCIDENT for which plaintiff is seeking to recover damages.)

4.      Admit you were at least 1% at fault in causing the COLLISION.

5.      Admit you were l00% at fault in causing the COLLISION.

6.      Admit that as a result of the COLLISION, you caused the INSURED to incur damages. (For purposes of these requests, the term INSURED refers to the owner of the INSURED VEHICLE.)

7.      Admit that as a result of the COLLISION, you caused the INSURED to incur damages of at least $18,204.91.

8.      Admit that plaintiff as the insurer for the INSURED has been damaged in the amount of at least $18,204.91, the amount which it paid its INSURED on the claim its INSURED made for his/her losses arising from INCIDENT plus any other uncovered losses the INSURED suffered and assigned to plaintiff.

9.      Admit that the affirmative defenses you have asserted in this matter lack merit and evidentiary support.

(Cicione Decl., Exhibit A, pp. 1-2.)

“Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 636 [discussing unverified discovery responses].)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel has testified that Cruz never served verified responses, and Cruz has not filed any opposition indicating otherwise. Therefore, the Court finds that Cruz failed to serve timely responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs.

The Court is required to grant a motion to deem requests for admission admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Here, there is no proof that Cruz has served a verified, proposed response to the RFAs. 

Accordingly, the Court finds it proper to grant the request to deem the following matters in the RFAs admitted.

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes the motions unless the court “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. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

            Here, Plaintiff seeks sanctions of $660 against Cruz. The amount consists of 2 hours counsel spent on the moving papers at her billing rate of $300 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee. (Cicione Decl., ¶ 4.)

            The Court finds the requested sanctions reasonable.

II.        CONCLUSION

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s motion is GRANTED.

The truth of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, are hereby deemed admitted against Defendant Eduardo Martinez Cruz.

Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiff sanctions of $660.

Counsel for the Moving Party is ordered to give notice.