Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 23STCV20937, Date: 2024-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV20937, Date: 2024-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20937 Hearing Date: April 12, 2024 Dept: 27

HON. LEE S. ARIAN

DEPARTMENT 27

TENTATIVE RULING

Hearing Date: 4/12/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case No./Name: 23STCV20937 CESAR CHAVEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL vs GILMER FIGUEROA

Motion: MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS

Moving Party: Plaintiff

Responding Party: Defendant Boris Navarro

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, ADMITTED AND FOR SANCTIONS IS GRANTED.

Background

On August 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed the present auto collision case. On October 10, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant Boris Navarro with his Request for Admission (RFA), Set One. On December 12, 2023, Plaintiff sent Defendant's counsel, Hanger, Steinberg, Shapiro & Ash, courtesy copies of the discovery requests. From December 2023 to February 2024, the parties were in communication, and Plaintiff granted Defendant various extensions to provide the discovery responses, even allowing Defendant to preserve his objections. However, Defendant failed to provide the discovery response by the final deadline set for February 19, 2024, and Plaintiff now moves the court to deem the contents of Plaintiff's RFA, Set One, admitted.

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

It is undisputed that Defendant failed to serve an initial response, even one consisting solely of objections, within the timeframe required by CCP § 2033.250(a). Defendant filed an opposition but did not show that substantially compliant responses were served prior to the hearing date. Therefore, the current Motion to Deem Requests for Admission (RFA) Admitted is GRANTED.

Defendant’s counsel argued that they have not resolved the representation issue with Defendant's carrier and intends to move to be relieved as counsel. Defendant requests the Court to simply grant Plaintiff's motion instead of deeming the requests admitted. The Court does not find Defendant's argument persuasive for several reasons. First, Defendant did not cite any section of the California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) that provides for such an order. Second, Plaintiff granted Defendant over six months to provide the discovery responses and has been in communication with defense counsel for four months, even allowing Defendant to preserve his objections. This means that Defendant’s counsel could have served a response consisting of only objections to prevent the contents of the RFA from being admitted; however, Defendant’s counsel failed to do so. Furthermore, Defendant’s counsel had four months to resolve the representation issue but has not done so. The Court does not see how allowing an extra 30 days would resolve the issue.

Sanctions are mandatory against the party, the attorney, or both whose failure to serve timely discovery responses necessitated Defendant to file the current motion. (CCP § 2033.280(c).) Defendant requested sanctions in the amount of $1,250.00, which the Court finds reasonable. Given that Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel have been in communication since December 12, 2023, with Plaintiff agreeing to several extensions and even consenting to preserve Defendant’s objections, Plaintiff has been more than accommodating to Defendant. Thus, under the circumstances, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for sanctions. Defendant and his counsel are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions of $1,250.00 to Plaintiff within 20 days of today’s date.

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.