Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 24NWCV01598, Date: 2024-08-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24NWCV01598 Hearing Date: August 6, 2024 Dept: C
Jose Villalobos vs Rosario
Pasillas
Case No.: 24NWCV01598
Hearing Date: August 6, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m.
#5
Tentative Ruling
Defendant Rosario Pasillas’s unopposed Motion
to Deem Matters Admitted is GRANTED. Sanctions in the requested amount of $400 is
GRANTED, payable within 60 days by Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly
and severally,
Defendant to give notice.
Background
On May 22, 2024, Plaintiff Jose Villallobos (“Plaintiff”)
filed a Complaint against Defendant Rosario Pasillas (“Defendant”) for unlawful
detainer.
On June 3, 2024, Defendant served upon Plaintiff Requests
for Admissions.
Defendant filed the instant motion on June 20, 2024.
Defendant indicates that at the time of filing the motion no response was
received from Plaintiff.
Legal
Standard
Where
there has been no timely response to requests for admissions, a “requesting
party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth
of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a
monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).”
The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted
“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).)
Discussion
On June 3, 2024, Defendant served Requests for Admissions by
mail with responses due no later than June 17, 2024. (Mendel Decl., ¶4.) Defendant
filed the instant motion on June 20, 2024.
As of the date this motion was filed, no response was received from
Plaintiff. (Mendel Decl., ¶6.)
In an untimely opposition brief, Plaintiff’s counsel states
that responses were served, without objection, on July 23, 2024. (Coleman
Decl., ¶6.)
Plaintiff argues that because this lawsuit was originally
filed as an unlimited civil case, Plaintiff’s counsel believed the “normal case
timelines applied” instead of the shorter deadline for unlawful detainer
actions. (Opp., p.2:16-18.)
In unlawful detainer actions, responses to requests for
admissions are due within five days. (CCP § 2033.250, subd. (b).) In other
types of cases, responses are due within 30 days. (CCP
§ 2033.250, subd. (a).) As Defendant points out, Plaintiff’s responses were
served 50 days after the requests were made.
Thus, even if Plaintiff’s counsel believed that Plaintiff had 30 days to
respond, the responses were still untimely.
In any event, because responses were served before the
hearing, the motion is MOOT.
Sanctions
It is mandatory that the court
impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely
response to requests for admission necessitated this motion. (CCP § 2033.280,
subd. (c).)