Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV12948, Date: 2023-10-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV12948 Hearing Date: October 11, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On April 18, 2022, Plaintiff Maria Salud Zepeda-Pedrizco (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the City of Los Angeles, and Does 1-50 for negligence (Gov. Code, § 815.2) and common carrier liability (Gov. Code. § 815.2).
On June 2, 2022, the Court dismissed the City of Los Angeles without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On May 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the City of Los Angeles, and Does 1-50 for negligence (Gov. Code, § 815.2) and common carrier liability (Gov. Code. § 815.2).
On August 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the City of Los Angeles, and Does 1-50 for negligence (Gov. Code, § 815.2).
On September 20, 2022, Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”) filed an answer.
On July 13, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.
On September 12, 2023, Metro filed a motion for an order that the truth of matters specified in Metro’s requests for admission be deemed admitted. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
Trial is currently scheduled for October 16, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Metro requests that the Court order that the truth of matters specified in Metro’s requests for admission be deemed admitted.
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
On August 1, 2023, Metro served requests for admission on Plaintiff. (Metro’s motion describes the requests for admission both as set one and set three.) Responses were due on September 5, 2023.
Plaintiff failed to serve timely responses. Before Metro filed this motion on September 12, 2023, Plaintiff had not served responses or requested an extension of time to respond to the requests for admission.
Metro now moves the Court to deem admitted the matters specified in Metro’s requests for admission. The Court grants the motion and deems admitted the matters specified in the requests for admission served on Plaintiff.
CONCLUSION
Moving party is 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.