Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 20STCV42443, Date: 2023-12-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV42443, Date: 2023-12-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42443 Hearing Date: February 27, 2024 Dept: 27

Complaint Filed: 11/05/2020

Trial Date: 3/27/2025

Hon. Lee Arian

Department 27

Tentative Decision

Hearing Date: 2/27/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case Name: ABDELRAHMAN MUSTAFA ABDELRAHMAN, vs. PACIFIC TRAFFIC CONTROL, INC., FRANCISCO JAVIER PROA NARANJO, & DOES 1-5

Case No.: 20STCV42443

Motion: Motion To Deem Requests For Admissions, Set One, Admitted And Requests for Sanctions

Moving Party: Plaintiff ABDELRAHMAN MUSTAFA ABDELRAHMAN

Responding Party: Defendant PACIFIC TRAFFIC CONTROL, INC.

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests For Admissions, Set One, Admitted is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $60.00

BACKGROUND

This auto accident case was filed on November 6, 2020, with the Plaintiff appearing pro per. On August 1, 2023, Plaintiff electronically served Defendant PACIFIC TRAFFIC CONTROL, INC. with the first set of Requests for Admission (RFAs). Although the responses were due by September 4, 2023, they were not served until January 24, 2024. Consequently, Plaintiff is now moving to have the RFAs deemed admitted and for sanctions.

ANALYSIS

I. Request for Admissions

“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.” CCP § 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 . . . .” CCP § 2033.250(a).

If a party to whom request for admissions are served fails to provide a timely response, the party to whom the request was directed waives any objections, including based on privilege or the work product doctrine. CCP § 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 monetary sanctions. CCP § 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. CCP § 2033.280(c).

Here, Defendant does not dispute the following facts: 1) Plaintiff served Defendant Pacific Traffic Control’s first set of Requests for Admission (RFAs) on August 1, 2023; 2) Defendant Pacific Traffic Control’s responses were served on January 24, 2024, beyond the statutory deadline. (Declaration Of Cindy Chapman (Chapman Decl.) ¶ 10.)

It is undisputed that Defendant’s initial responses were not served within the timeframe required by CCP § 2033.250(a), thus failing to meet the deadline for a timely response.

Given this failure to provide timely responses, the Movant is entitled to file a motion for an order deeming the RFAs admitted and to request monetary sanctions in accordance with CCP § 2033.280(b). Such an order is mandated unless the party to whom the request was directed serves a response in substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.220 prior to the motion's hearing. CCP § 2033.280(c).

Defendant served responses to Plaintiff’s RFA set one on January 24, 2024 (Exhibit A to Chapman Decl.); therefore, the present motion is moot.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to deem as admitted RFAs Set One is GRANTED

2. Sanctions

Sanctions are mandatory against the party, the attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to the request necessitated the motion to deem request for admissions as admitted. CCP § 2033.280(c).

Defendants' motion includes a request for sanctions totaling $830, based on $750 for the time spent researching and preparing the motion, and $80 in filing fees. (Declaration of Abdelrahman M. Abdelrahman ¶ 4.) However, the court believes that Plaintiff made an error as the filing fee is $60. Given that a party in pro per cannot be awarded attorney’s fees as a discovery sanction, as established in Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1175, the awardable sanction is limited to $60 for the filing fees, which the Court now awards against both Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally, to be paid within 10 days.