Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 19NWCV00768, Date: 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 19NWCV00768, Date: 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19NWCV00768 Hearing Date: August 15, 2023 Dept: C

OLIVER v. PICO CENTER INC., et al.

CASE NO.: 19NWCV00768

HEARING: 8/15/23

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Pico Center Inc., Wonsuk An, and Brian An’s motion for an order deeming admissions admitted is GRANTED. The truth of the matters in Defendants’ request for admissions is deemed admitted.

Reduced sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff in the reasonable sum of $1,000.00 payable within 30 days.

Moving Parties to give NOTICE.

Defendants Pico Center Inc., Wonsuk An, and Brian An move to compel responses to request for admissions pursuant to CCP § 2033.280.

Complaint

On September 30, 2019, Plaintiff Christopher Oliver filed a complaint alleging Wrongful Eviction. Plaintiff entered into an oral contract with defendant for monthly rental of $650 on a month-to-month basis. (Complaint, ¶ 7.) Plaintiff paid rent for the month of October 2017, but defendants manifested an explicit intent to terminate the occupancy of plaintiffs and caused interruption of the interior access to the property. (Id., ¶ 9.) Based thereon, the Complaint asserts causes of action for:

1. Breach of Contract

2. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

3. Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment

4. Trespass

5. Nuisance

6. IIED

7. NIED

8. Negligence

9. Wrongful Eviction

Merits

CCP § 2033.280(b) and (c) allow the propounding party to file a motion requesting that the truth of any matters specified in the request for admissions be deemed admitted unless the party to whom the requests have been directed has served before the hearing a proposed response that is in substantial compliance.

On January 9, 2023, defendants served Plaintiff with Requests for Admission, Set One. (Jun Decl., ¶ 5.) Responses were due on February 13, 2023. Plaintiff failed to file timely responses.

Defendants filed the instant motion on February 14, 2023. Plaintiff filed and served his opposition on July 28, 2023 (by overnight delivery) and again on July 31, 2023 (by overnight delivery). Plaintiff’s opposition was timely as of July 28, 2028. Even if the opposition was untimely, Defendants were able to file a Reply addressing the substantive issues, and as such, the court will exercise its discretion to consider the motion on the merits.

In opposition, Plaintiff explains that on January 21, 2023, Plaintiff was informed that his sole maternal uncle was diagnosed with stage four cancer, and on February 2, 2023, he flew to El Paso, Texas to say his final “goodbyes.” (Oliver Decl., ¶¶ 4, 5.) Plaintiff attests that he served “verified responses” on February 17, 2023 (Id., ¶ 8).

In Reply, Defendants point out that the responses that Plaintiff served were not verified. Although Plaintiff attests that he served “verified responses” (Id., ¶ 8), the responses do not contain a verification. (Reply June Decl., Ex. C.) Unverified responses “are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. The truth of the matters specified in Defendants’ request is deemed admitted.

Sanctions: CCP § 2033.280 makes the imposition of sanctions mandatory if a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admission.

Here, the imposition of sanctions is mandatory because Plaintiff failed to timely respond to request for admissions. The court finds Defendants’ total request of $2,122.50 is excessive. Instead, reduced sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff in the reasonable sum of $1,000.00 payable within 30 days.