Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC00130, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STLC00130 Hearing Date: January 18, 2024 Dept: 25
Hearing Date: Thursday, January 18, 2024
Case Name: MERCURY
v. DAYLIN BICKHAM, MELINDA LUSS-BICKHAM, et al.
Case No.: 23STLC00130
Motion: Motion to Deem Requests for
Admissions Admitted and Request for Monetary Sanctions
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Mercury Insurance Company
Responding Party: None
Notice: OK
Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff Mercury Insurance
Co.’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions (Set One) Admitted is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s
Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $460.00 against Defendant
Melinda Luss-Bickham.
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 04, 2024 [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as of January 10, 2024 [ ] Late [X] None
BACKGROUND
On January 09, 2023, Plaintiff Mercury
Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a subrogation action, stemming from a
motor vehicle accident against Defendants Daylin Bickham (“Bickham”) and
Melinda Luss-Bickham (“Luss-Bickham”) (collectively “Defendants”) seeking
damages in the amount of $18,585.17.
On November 03, 2023, Plaintiff filed the
instant Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted and Request for Monetary
Sanctions (the “Motion”) against Defendant Luss-Bickham. 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 Requests for
Admissions, Set One, (“RFA’s”) be deemed admitted. Plaintiffs argue that
the motion is necessary as Defendant Luss-Bickham 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 (2) hours of 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 Admissions
(Set One) be deemed admitted. Plaintiff argues that the motion is
necessary as Defendant has failed to serve responses under section 2033.280.
Plaintiff additionally seeks sanctions against Defendant for the fees incurred
filing and arguing the motion.
A. Request for Admissions
Here, Plaintiff
provides the Court with a declaration from Plaintiff’s counsel, where counsel states
that his office served Defendant Luss-Bickham with Requests for Admission, Set
One, on August 22, 2023, by mail. (Tristan P. Espinosa Decl., ¶ 1, See Also.
Ex. A.) Thirty-five (35) days later Plaintiff received no response to its RFAs.
(Id. ¶ 2.) Here, since more than 35 days has lapsed since service of the
RFAs, Plaintiff is entitled to pursue the motion. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled
to an order deeming the Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted against
Defendant Luss-Bickham. (Code Civ. Proc., § 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).)
Here, the Court finds Defendant
Luss-Bickham’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set
One, a misuse of the discovery process. Therefore, the Court is 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 requests sanctions be imposed
on Defendant Luss- Bickham in the amount of $460.00, based on the following:
$400.00 for two (2) hours of attorney time billed at $200.00 per hour and $60.00
in filing fees. (Espinosa Decl., ¶ 3.) 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 Mercury Insurance Company’s Motion to Deem
Requests for Admissions Admitted is GRANTED. THE COURT DEEMS THE MATTERS WITHIN
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, AS TRUE AGAINST DEFENDANT
LUSS-BICKHAM. DEFENDANT LUSS-BICKHAM 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.