Judge Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case Number: 22STLC05352, Date: 2024-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC05352, Date: 2024-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC05352 Hearing Date: January 22, 2024 Dept: 25

Hearing Date: Monday, January 22, 2024

Case Name: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. JASMIN GISELLE GUZMAN

Case No.: 22STLC05352

Motion: Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted and Request for Monetary Sanctions

Moving Party: Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Responding Party: None

Notice: OK

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co.’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions (Set One) Admitted is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $460.00 against Defendant Jasmine Giselle Guzman.

SERVICE:

[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of January 08, 2024 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of January 12, 2024 [ ] Late [X] None

BACKGROUND

On August 12, 2022, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a subrogation action against Defendant Jasmin Giselle Guzman (“Defendant”) seeking damages in the amount of $4,262.37 for a motor vehicle accident involving Defendant and Plaintiff’s insured.

On November 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”) against Defendant. No opposition was filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Plaintiff requests the Court order that the genuineness of the documents and the truth of the matters specified in Plainitff’s Request for Admissions, Set One, (“RFA’s”) be deemed admitted. Plaintiff argues that the motion is necessary as Defendant failed to serve timely verified responses under CCP Section 2033.280. Plaintiff additionally seeks $460.00 in sanctions for court fees totaling $60.00 and attorney’s fees totaling $400.00 for two (2) hours, at a rate of $200 per hour, for work on the motion.

OPPOSITION

No opposition has been filed.

REPLY

No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

I. Legal Standard

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.)

II. Discussion

Plaintiff moves for the Court to issue an order that the genuineness of the documents and the truth of the matters specified in the Request for Admissions (Set One) be deemed admitted. Plaintiff argues that the motion is necessary as Defendant has failed to serve verified responses under section 2033.280. Plaintiff additionally seeks sanctions against Defendant for the fees incurred filing and arguing the motion.

A. Request for Admissions

Plaintiff provides the Court with a declaration of its counsel. Counsel declares that her office served Defendant with Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, (RFAs) on March 28, 2023. (Janelle McCammack Decl., ¶ 1; Exh. A.) Defendant’s responses were initially set to be due on May 01, 2023. (Id. ¶ 2.) Counsel states that multiple extensions were given to Defendant’s counsel, extending the deadline to provide verified responses to May 17, 2023. On June 14, 2023, Defendant’s counsel served unverified responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs. (Id. ¶ 3,4; Exh. B.) On April 20, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant a meet and confer letter advising Defendant that, her unverified responses were equivalent to no responses at all. (Id. ¶ 5; Exh. C.) Plaintiff declares that to date no statutory compliant responses have been served on Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 6.)

The Court finds Defendant’s responses to be unverified. CCP § 2033.240 (a) states that a “party to whom the requests for admission are directed shall sign the response under oath, unless the response contains only objections.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.240 subd. (a).) CCP § 2033.240(c) further states that “the attorney for the responding party shall sign any response that contains an objection.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.240 subd. (c).) Courts have held that, “[u]nsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

Here, Defendant’s responses are unverified because it does not contain the Defendant’s signature, but rather Defendant’s counsel’s signature. (McCammack Decl. Exh. B.) The Court notes that Defendant’s responses do not contain any objections, nor does it contain only objections. Thus, Defendant is required to sign the responses under oath rather than her attorney. Here, since Defendant did not do so, the responses are not considered verified under CCP § 2033.240(a). Thus, since Defendant has not provided Plaintiff’s with verified responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs within 30 days of its service, and Plaintiff is entitled an order deeming Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted against Defendant pursuant to CCP § 2033.280.

B. Sanctions

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 because 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).) Furthermore, 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 this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

The Court finds Defendant’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, a misuse of the discovery process. The Court is also required to impose a monetary sanction on Defendant for their failure to respond to the Requests for Admission that necessitated this motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $460.00, based on two (2) hours of attorney time billed at $200.00 per hour and a filing fee of $60.00. (McCammack Decl., ¶ 7.) The Court finds the amount reasonable given the simplicity of this Motion and the lack of opposition and reply. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED.

III. Conclusion

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted is GRANTED. THE COURT DEEMS THE MATTERS WITHIN PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, AS TRUE AGAINST DEFENDANT. DEFENDANT IS ORDERED TO PAY $460.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.