Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC06361, Date: 2024-02-29 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: 22STLC06361    Hearing Date: February 29, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, February 29, 2024

Case Name:                             SAFEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY v. JASIEL TRUJILLO ROMAN; and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive

Case No.:                                22STLC06361

Motion:                                   Motion for an Order Deeming Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, as Admitted and Request for Monetary Sanctions

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Safeway Insurance Company  

Responding Party:                   Unopposed  

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Deeming Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, served upon Defendant Jasiel Trujillo Roman as Admitted is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.   Defendant is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $360.00 to Plaintiff within 30 days of the date of this order.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on July 31, 2021. On September 28, 2022, Plaintiff Safeway Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for damages against Defendants Jasiel Trujillo Roman (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive.

On March 3, 2023, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint.

On January 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served the instant unopposed motion to deem Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, served on Defendant as admitted. Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $660.00. Any opposition to the motion was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).)

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Plaintiff contends that no responses to its requests for admission have been served and they are long overdue. Plaintiff argues that all matters specified in its requests for admission should be deemed admitted. Plaintiff argues that sanctions must be imposed against Defendant for his failure to serve a timely response to Plaintiff’s requests for admission.  

OPPOSITION

            None as of February 26, 2024.  

REPLY

            None as of February 26, 2024.

ANALYSIS

I.          Requests for Admission  

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).) In the discovery context “[u]nsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.

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.” Ibid.

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.

B.        Discussion  

Plaintiff’s counsel, Joseph M. Pleasant (“Pleasant”), declares that on March 21, 2023, his office served Defendant’s counsel with Set One of Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission through electronic service. (Pleasant Decl., ¶ 2; Exhibit A.) On August 2, 2023, after numerous extensions were granted for Defendant to provide responses by such date, Defendant served unverified responses. (Pleasant Decl., ¶ 2; Exhibit B.) After meet and confer correspondence, Defendant served further unverified supplemental responses on October 4, 2023. (Pleasant Decl., ¶¶ 2-3; Exhibits B, C, and D.) Pleasant declares that “[t]o date, [his] office has not received any verified response to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One.” (Pleasant Decl., ¶ 3.)

As to monetary sanctions, Pleasant declares that his hourly rate is $300.00 per hour and a $60.00 filing fee was incurred for the motion. (Pleasant Decl., ¶ 4.) Pleasant states that he spent two (2) hours of attorney time to bring the motion. (Pleasant Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions against Defendant in the total amount of $660.00. (Pleasant Decl., ¶ 4.)

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to provide verifications to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, and the lack of verifications are tantamount to no response. Thus, the Court finds that the matters in Set One of Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission shall be deemed admitted. Moreover, the motion is unopposed which leads to an inference that the motion has merit. Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410. Plaintiff’s motion for an order deeming Set One of its Requests for Admission as admitted is GRANTED.

The Court finds that the motion is relatively straightforward and not complex in nature. Thus, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the reasonable amount of $360.00. Such an amount represents one (1) hour of work on the motion plus the $60.00 filing fee. Defendant is ORDERED to pay monetary sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $360.00 within 30 days of the date of this order.

II.        Conclusion

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an order deeming Set One of Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission as admitted is GRANTED.

            Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $360.00 to Plaintiff within 30 days of the date of this order.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice.