Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 23STCV01213, Date: 2024-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV01213, Date: 2024-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01213 Hearing Date: December 12, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION FOR ORDER ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS (SET TWO) AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Hearing Date: 12/12/24¿

CASE NO./NAME: 23STCV01213 AMANDA PHAM vs LVMH MOET HENNESSY LOUIS VUITTON INC., et al.

Moving Party: Cross-Defendant Pink Sparrow Scenic Ltd.

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Sufficient¿

Ruling: GRANTED

Background

On May 8, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff Amanda Pham’s (“Plaintiff”) counsel’s motion to be relieved, effective upon filing proof of service of the order on Plaintiff. The proof of service was filed on May 9, 2024. Plaintiff is currently self-represented. On October 8, 2024, Cross-Defendant Pink Sparrow Scenic Ltd. (“Pink Sparrow”) served Request for Admissions, Set Two on Plaintiff via overnight delivery. Responses were due November 12, 2024. Plaintiff did not respond.

Pink Sparrow now moves the Court to deem the contents of its Requests for Admissions, Set Two, admitted. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard¿¿

“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). Unlike a motion to compel further discovery responses, a motion to deem RFA admitted does not have any meet and confer requirements.¿¿

Analysis

Plaintiff failed to serve an initial response, including any objections, within the timeframe required by CCP § 2033.250(a). No opposition or other documents were filed indicating that responses were served prior to the hearing. Therefore, the contents of Pink Sparrow’s Requests for Admissions, Set Two, are deemed admitted.

Sanctions are mandatory against the party, the attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely discovery response necessitated Pink Sparrow’s filing of the present motion. (CCP § 2033.280(c).) Pink Sparrow has requested sanctions in the amount of $1,385, which the Court finds reasonable. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,385 to counsel for Pink Sparrow within 20 days of this order.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept27@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.