Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23NWLC07062, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWLC07062    Hearing Date: January 22, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Monday, January 22, 2024

Case Name:                             GCFS, INC., a California corporation v. ZACHARY T. CADWALLADER AKA ZACH CADWALLADER, individually and DBA ZACH CADWALLADER

Case No.:                                23NWLC07062

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

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff GCFS, Inc., a California corporation

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff GCFS, Inc.’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 Zachary T. Cadwallader aka Zach Cadwallader, individually and dba Zach Cadwallader.

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 December 01, 2023              [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of December 07, 2023              [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

On March 16, 2023, Plaintiff GCFS Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed two causes of action against Defendant Zachary T. Cadwallader aka Zach Cadwallader, individually and dba Zach Cadwallader (“Defendant”) for breach of contract and common counts, seeking damages in the amount of $2,639.53.

Defendant filed his Answer on May 04, 2023.

On October 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem Requests for Admission 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 truths of the matters specified in the Request for Admissions, Set One, (“RFA’s”) be deemed admitted. Plaintiff argues that the motion is necessary as Defendant failed to serve responses under 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 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 an order that the genuineness of the documents and the truth of the matters specified in the Requests for Admission (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 from Plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel declares that his office served Defendant with Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, (RFAs) on May 17, 2023. (Gary A. Bemis Decl., ¶ 3; Exh. 2.) Around July 12, 2023, Plaintiff’s Counsel noticed no responses had been received as to Plaintiff’s RFAs after revieing his file, thus necessitating the motion. (Id. ¶ 4.)  Plaintiff’s counsel subsequently served Defendant a meet and confer letter advising Defendant’s counsel to provide responsive answers to Plaintiff’s discovery request by July 26, 2023, to avoid filing the instant motion. (Id.; Exh. 1.) The Court presumes that since the issuance of the “meet and confer” letter, no responses have been filed.

 Here, the Court finds that more than 30 days have lapsed since Defendant was served with Plaintiff’s RFAs because Defendant has not submitted verified responses within the initial 30 days or after Plaintiff’s July 26, 2023, extension. Thus, since Defendant has not provided Plaintiff’s with verified responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs within 30 days of its service, Plaintiff is entitled to pursue the motion. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to 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’s counsel seeks sanctions in the amount of $460.00, based on two (2) hours of attorney time billed at $200.00 per hour for work on the motion and a filing fee of $60.00. (Bemis Decl., ¶ 5.)  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 GCFS, Inc.’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted is GRANTED. THE COURT DEEMS THE MATTERS WITHIN PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, AS TRUE AGAINST DEFENDANT.

DEFENDANT ZACHARY T. CADWALLADER AKA ZACH CADWALLADER, individually and DBA ZACH CADWALLADER 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.