Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC01366, Date: 2024-03-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STLC01366 Hearing Date: March 14, 2024 Dept: 25
Hearing Date: Thursday, March 14, 2024
Case Name: SAFEWAY
INSURANCE COMPANY v. JOHANNA JOVEL; DOES 1 – 5 inclusive
Case No.: 23STLC01366
Motion: Motion for an Order Deeming its
Request for Admissions Served Upon Johanna Jovel Admitted; Request for Monetary
Sanctions
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Safeway Insurance Company
Responding Party: None
Notice: OK
Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff Safeway Insurance
Co.’s Motion for an Order Deeming its Request for Admissions Served Upon
Johanna Jovel as Admitted is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s
Request for Sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $660.00 against
Defendant Johanna Jovel.
DEFENDANT JOHANNA JOVEL IS ORDERED TO PAY $660.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN
THIRTY (30) DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS COURT’S ORDER.
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 March 01, 2024 [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as of March 07, 2024 [ ] Late [X] None
BACKGROUND
On February 24, 2023, Plaintiff Safeway
Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a subrogation claim against Defendant Johanna
Jovel (“Defendant”) arising from a motor vehicle collision involving
Plaintiff’s insured and Defendant.
Defendant filed her Answer to
Plaintiff’s Complaint on May 30, 2023. Defendant additionally filed a
Cross-Complaint against Sargis Muradyan (“Cross-Defendant”) for comparative
indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.
On August 23, 2023, Defendant moved
to dismiss Cross-Defendant Muradyan with prejudice. The Court entered dismissal
the same day.
On February 02, 2024, Plaintiff filed the
instant Motion for an Order Deeming its Request for Admissions Served Upon
Johanna Jovel Admitted and Request for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”)
against the Defendant. No opposition was filed.
MOVING PARTY
POSITION
Plaintiff prays for the Court to issue an order deeming
its Request for Admissions, Set One, (“RFA’s”) as admitted. Plaintiff argues
that the motion is necessary as Defendant failed to serve timely responses under
section 2033.010 and 2033.280. Plaintiff additionally seeks $660.00 in
sanctions for court fees totaling $60.00 and attorney’s fees totaling $600.00
for two hours spent working on the motion, at a rate of $300 per hour.
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 deeming its Requests for
Admission (Set One) as 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 the motion.
A. Request for Admissions
Plaintiff
provides the Court with a declaration from its counsel who declares that his
office served Defendant with Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One,
(RFAs) on June 29, 2023. (Joseph M. Pleasant Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. A.) On October 17,
2023, Plaintiff’s Counsel emailed Defendant advising her that no responses were
received. (Id. ¶ 3; Exh. B.) Counsel later states that on October 18,
2023, Defense Counsel served unverified responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs. (Id.
¶ 4. Exh. C.) On November 06, 2023, Counsel emailed Defense counsel, advising
that they had not received verification for Defendant’s responses (Id. ¶
5; Exh. D.) Counsel emailed a second letter on November 30, 2023, requesting
Defendant’s discovery response verifications. (Id., Exh. E.) Counsel
avers that to date no verified responses have been received. (Id.)
Here, the Court finds that more than 30 days have
lapsed since Defendant was served with Plaintiff’s RFAs. CCP § 446(a) requires
that responses to RFAs must be verified by the responding party, not by counsel.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 446, subd. (a).) Here,
Plaintiff provides the Court with evidence that Defendant’s responses are not
verified because the responses are only signed by Defense counsel and not
directly by the Defendant herself. (Pleasant Decl. ¶ 4. Exh. C.) Thus, since Defendant has not provided 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 provide verified responses 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 her 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 $660, based on two (2) hours of attorney time billed
at $300.00 per hour for work on the motion and a filing fee of $60.00. (Pleasant
Decl., ¶ 6.) The Court finds the amount reasonable
given the simplicity of this Motion and the lack of opposition and reply. Accordingly,
the Court grants sanctions in the amount $660.00 for the sum of: two (2) hours spent
drafting the motion, plus $60.00 in court fees.
III. Conclusion
Plaintiff Safeway Insurance Co.’s Motion for an Order
Deeming its Request for Admissions Served Upon Johanna Jovel Admitted is
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $660.00 against Defendant Johanna Jovel.
DEFENDANT JOHANNA
JOVEL IS ORDERED TO PAY $660.00
TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS COURT’S ORDER.
Moving party is ordered to give
notice.