Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 19STCV35738, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV35738 Hearing Date: November 15, 2023 Dept: 27
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Rosa
Hernandez, et al
|
Wednesday,
November 15, 2023 |
[UNOPPOSED]
Plaintiff’s Motions to Deem Requests for
Admission Admitted
TENTATIVE
Plaintiff’s Motions to Deem Requests for
Admissions Admitted as to both Rosa Hernandez and Santiago Jacinto Lorenzo are GRANTED.
The request for sanctions is granted, and the sanctions are imposed on
Defendants, and awarded to Plaintiff in the amount of $600.00.
Background
This is a
subrogation action filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
(“Plaintiff”) against Rosa Hernandez and Santiago Jacinto Lorenzo (“Defendants”).
The Complaint was filed on October 7, 2019, and alleges that Defendants
collided with Plaintiff’s insured driver Jose Gerardo Gutierrez. (Complaint, ¶
6.)
Plaintiff now
files two Motions to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted (“Motions”) against
both Defendants. No opposition was filed.
Discussion
Legal
Standard
Code of Civil
Procedure § 2033.250, provides, in pertinent part, that “[w]ithin 30 days after
service of the request for admissions . . . the party to whom the requests are
directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting
party.” A motion to deem admitted requests for admissions lies based upon a
showing of failure to respond timely. (CCP §2033.280(b); Demyer v. Costa
Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, disapproved on
other grounds by Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983.)
Requests for admissions must be deemed admitted where no responses in
substantial compliance was served before the hearing. (CCP §2033.280(c).) As to
motions to deem matters admitted, no meet and confer is required. (Demyer v.
Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 393, 395, overruled
on other grounds by Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 973, 983.
Also see Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 904–906, 169
Cal.Rptr. 42 [rejecting argument that state rule of court requiring
informal meet and confer applied to motion where no response at all had been
made to interrogatory requests, reasoning that because objections had been
waived for failure to timely answer, there was “nothing to ‘resolve’ with the
meaning” of the rule)].)
“[A] motion to
have admission requests deemed admitted may not be granted where the record
establishes ... that (1) proposed responses to the requests have been served
prior to the hearing on the motion and (2) such responses are in substantial
compliance with the provisions of section 2033, subdivision (f)(1).” (Tobin
v. Oris (1992) 3 Cal. App. 4th 814, 828, overruled on other grounds by Wilcox
v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 973, 983 n.12.) Courts evaluate tardy
responses to requests for admissions, in toto, to determine whether they
substantially comply with the code, and do not evaluate each individual
response. (St. Mary v. Sup. Ct. (2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 779-80.)
Analysis
Here, Plaintiff
provides the Declaration of Janelle McCammack (“McCammack Dec.”) which states
that Plaintiff propounded Requests for Admissions on both Defendants on October
17, 2022. (McCammack Dec., ¶ 1.) After two extensions, responses were never
served. (McCammack Dec., ¶ 2-6.) Therefore, both Motions will be granted, and
sanctions imposed. Plaintiff’s counsel provides the following calculations:
·
Counsel’s
hourly rate is $200.00
·
Counsel
spent 2 hours on each Motion
·
The
filing fee for each Motion was $60.00
Considering the similarity between the
Motions, the Court will award $600.00 in sanctions to
Plaintiff, imposed against Defendants.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s
Motions to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted as to both Rosa Hernandez and
Santiago Jacinto Lorenzo are GRANTED. The request for sanctions
is granted, and the sanctions are imposed on Defendants, and awarded to
Plaintiff in the amount of $600.00.
Moving
party is ordered to give notice.