Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case 22NWCV00578 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00578, Date: 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00578 Hearing Date: April 6, 2023 Dept: C

M Y KHANANI LLC v. TRACY

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00578

HEARING: 04/06/23

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem RFA (set one) as to Defendant JULIE REGINA TRACY is DENIED as MOOT.

Opposing Party to give Notice.

“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…. 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…. (c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7…on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (CCP §2033.280.) Unverified responses “are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) No prior attempt to resolve the matter informally is required.

Here, RFAs were propounded on or about August 1, 2022.

In Opposition, Defendant indicates that untimely responses were served on March 26, 2023.

In Reply, Plaintiff argues that the Motion is not rendered moot, and should be granted, because Defendant failed to serve responses in substantial compliance with the Code. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s responses are inadequate and that Defendant’s electronic signature fails to qualify as a code-compliant verification.

The court finds the responses are in substantial compliance. If Plaintiff disputes Defendant’s electronic signature, then Plaintiff may serve a demand for production of the original signed document pursuant to CRC § 2.257(b).

Sanctions were previously granted by this Court on 03/28/23.