Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV17290, Date: 2024-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17290    Hearing Date: February 26, 2024    Dept: 27

Complaint Filed:          5/25/22

Trial Date:                    5/22/24

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Department 27

Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date:                         2/26/2024, at 1:30 p.m.

Case Name:                             ROBERT E EDMONSON vs. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND DOES 1- 20

Case No.:                                22STCV17290

Motion:                                   MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, AS ADMITTED AND SANCTIONS

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff ROBERT E EDMONSON

Responding Party:                   Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Notice:                                    Sufficient                                           

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

Defendant’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Robert E Edmonson slipped and fell on a sidewalk in Terminal 1 at LAX on May 28, 2021. On May 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Southwest Airlines and City of Los Angeles for 1) negligence and 2) dangerous condition on a public property.

On January 16, 2023, Plaintiff allegedly served the first set of requests for admission to Defendant City of Los Angeles (Yadegari Decl. ¶ 2, Exhibit 1 to Yadegari Decl.). The responses were due by February 18, 2023, and as of January 10, 2024, no responses have been provided (Yadegari Decl. ¶ 2). On January 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed the present motion to have the requests for admission, set one, deemed admitted.

ANALYSIS

“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).)¿ 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. (Id. at subd. (c).) 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.)¿¿ 

            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. Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).

Plaintiff’s counsel attests that the Discovery was served on Defendant City via email on January 16, 2023. (Yadegari Decl., ¶ 2.) However, Plaintiff’s counsel has yet to receive any responses from Defendant City. (Yadegari Decl., ¶ 3.) On the other hand, Defendant City’s counsel contends that he had not received the service email before having a phone conversation with Plaintiff’s counsel on January 10, 2024. (Charboneau Decl., ¶ 2.) Furthermore, both the City’s counsel and his assistant have reviewed the file and found no reference to the service email dated January 16, 2023, as claimed by Plaintiff’s counsel. (Charboneau Decl., ¶ 6, Dorfman Decl., ¶ 4.) Service of the discovery request at issue is contested.

Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with the alleged email from 2023, or proof of service of the discovery request at issue in the motion. Arguably, Plaintiff had the opportunity to provide this evidence in its reply but failed to file one. Accordingly, the Motion is denied, including the requests for sanctions.

Responding party to give notice.