Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC06425, Date: 2023-11-02 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: 22STLC06425    Hearing Date: November 2, 2023    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, November 2, 2023

Case Name:                             NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. WILLIAM LEMAR CHERRY; SIERRA TRANSPORT, LLC; and DOES 1-5

Case No.:                                22STLC06425

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

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Nationwide Insurance Company of America    

Responding Party:                   N/A

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:           Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Deeming Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission as Admitted is GRANTED.

       Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $360.00 are to be paid by Defendant and Defendant’s counsel, DLA Piper LLC, jointly and severally, to Plaintiff within 30 days of notice of the Court’s order.

BACKGROUND

On September 30, 2022, Plaintiff Nationwide Insurance Company of America (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for damages against Defendants William Lemar Cherry, Sierra Transport, LLC, and Does 1 to 5. The complaint arises from an alleged automobile accident involving Plaintiff’s insured, which occurred on October 12, 2019.

On June 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal as to Defendant Wiliam Lemar Cherry. On June 16, 2023, the clerk dismissed Defendant William Lemar Cherry from this action with prejudice.

On September 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed and served an unopposed motion for an order deeming its Request for Admissions, Set One, served on Defendant Sierra Transport, LLC (“Defendant”) as admitted, and for monetary sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel 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 it served Defendant with its Request for Admissions, Set One, on April 14, 2023, and no responses have been received.

OPPOSITION

            No opposition brief was filed.

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).)

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  

In support of the motion to deem Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission served on Defendant as admitted, Plaintiff’s counsel, Christina Cicione (“Cicione”) declares that her office served Defendant with Requests for Admission, Set One, via electronic service on April 14, 2023. Cicione Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A. Plaintiff has not received responses and Defendant’s counsel has not communicated regarding the past due responses. Id., ¶ 3.

Counsel’s hourly rate is $300.00 per hour and she has incurred two (2) hours of attorney time to bring the motion. Id., ¶ 4. A filing fee of $60.00 was incurred for the motion. Id. Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $660.00 against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record, DLA Piper LLC, jointly and severally. Id.

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One. Therefore, the Court finds that the matters therein shall be deemed admitted pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.280(b). Also, the motion is unopposed which creates an inference that the motion has merit. Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.

As to the issue of monetary sanctions, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $660.00 is unreasonable. Given that the motion is unopposed and the relative brevity and straightforward nature of the motion, the Court finds that monetary sanctions in the amount of $360.00 is reasonable. This amount represents one (1) hour of work on the motion as well as the $60.00 filing fee.

II.        Conclusion

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

            Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $360.00 are to be paid by Defendant and Defendant’s counsel, DLA Piper LLC, jointly and severally, to Plaintiff within 30 days of notice of the Court’s order.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice.