Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV27921, Date: 2024-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27921    Hearing Date: February 6, 2024    Dept: 27

Ambros Joaquin Taylor Gudino v. Marvin Gonzalez

CASE NUMBER: 22STCV27921

[UNOPPOSED]

Motion – Defendant’s Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted

TENTATIVE

            Defendant’s Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted is GRANTED. The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $435.00.  

Background

            This case was commenced by Ambros Gudino (Plaintiff) on August 26, 2022, when Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that Marvin Gonzalez (Defendant) was negligent after colliding with Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Complaint alleged two causes of action against Defendant: (1) motor vehicle negligence, and (2) general negligence. Defendant now files the motion before the Court, Defendant’s Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted (Motion).

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.)

            If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

   (a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:

   (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.

   (2) The party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (CCP § 2033.280)

Analysis

            Defendant provides the Declaration of Terence Phan (Phan Decl.) which states that after the Court granted a motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff’s initial counsel, Defendant served Requests for Admission, Set One on Plaintiff on September 6, 2023. (Phan Decl., ¶ 4.) On October 19, 2023, Defendant mailed a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff regarding the overdue discovery responses. (Phan Decl., ¶ 5.) To date, no responses nor objections were served on Defendant. (Phan Decl., ¶ 6.) The Motion remains unopposed.

Sanctions

            “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (CCP § 2023.030(a).) “Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (CCP § 2023.010)

            Defense counsel requests $435.00 in sanctions. This sanction request is reasonable. Therefore, the Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff, and awards them to Defendant in the amount of 435.00.   

Conclusion

            Defendant’s Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted is GRANTED. Further, the Court orders Plaintiff to pay $435.00 in sanctions to Defendant, to be paid directly to defense counsel, within 20 days of this ruling.  

Moving party is ordered to give notice.  

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.