Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV01696, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV01696 Hearing Date: June 7, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On January 14, 2022, Plaintiff Alvaro Zazueta-Paredes (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Jonathan Cabrera (“Cabrera”), Direct Chassislink, Inc. (“Direct”), and Does 1-25 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On June 14, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendants Milestone Chassis Co LLC as Doe 1. On November 22, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendants SSA Containers, Inc. as Doe 3 (“SSA”) and Patriot Express Inc. (“Express”) as Doe 4.
On March 15, 2024, Direct and SSA filed an answer.
Also on March 15, 2024, SSA filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Express, Cabrera, and Does 1-10 for indemnification, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief, and breach of contract.
On May 1, 2024, SSA filed a motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission served on Plaintiff and for sanctions, to be heard on June 7, 2024. On May 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On May 31, 2024, SSA filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for April 23, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
SSA asks the Court to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission served on Plaintiff and to impose sanctions on Plaintiff.
Plaintiff
asks the Court to deny the motion as moot and deny the sanctions request.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 provides:
“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, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). 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.
“(b) The 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).
“(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 (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.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)
DISCUSSION
SSA served requests for admission, set one, on Plaintiff on March 14, 2024. Plaintiff did not serve timely responses and had not served responses by the time SSA filed this motion on May 1, 2024.
On May 24, 2024, Plaintiff served responses to SSA’s requests for admission.
SSA concedes that “[Plaintiff’s] service of the response prevents the court from deeming the RFAs admitted” (Reply p. 3), but asks the Court to grant sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).
Plaintiff argues that (1) SSA’s motion is moot because Plaintiff has now served responses and (2) SSA is equitably estopped from asserting that Plaintiff’s responses were untimely because it ignored Plaintiff’s April 15, 2024 request for more time to serve responses.
It is undisputed that Plaintiff did not serve timely responses to the requests for admission. SSA was not obligated to grant Plaintiff’s request for additional time to serve the responses. (As a matter of common and professional courtesy, of course, SSA’s counsel should have responded promptly to Plaintiff’s request.) SSA points out that it did not file its motion until May 1, 2024, giving Plaintiff a “de facto” extension of time to serve responses to the requests for admission, but Plaintiff did not serve responses until May 24, 2024.
The Court finds that SSA is entitled to sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c). SSA requests $1,450.00 in sanctions based on five hours of attorney time at a rate of $290.00 per hour. Counsel spent two hours preparing the moving papers and expected to spend an additional three hours responding to any opposition and appearing for the hearing on the motion.
The Court grants sanctions of $750.00 based on three hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant SSA Containers, Inc.’s request for sanctions and orders Plaintiff Alvaro Zazueta-Paredes and his counsel to pay Defendant SSA Containers, Inc. $750.00 within 30 days of the hearing on this motion.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.