Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV19406, Date: 2024-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19406    Hearing Date: September 6, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On June 14, 2022, Plaintiff Adela Bautista Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Dean Enterprises (“Dean”), Iris M. Whiting, Trustee of the Iris M. Whiting 2006 Revocable Trust dated January 13, 2006 (“Whiting”), and Does 1-50 for negligence/premises liability. 

On August 23, 2022, Dean and Whiting filed an answer. 

On August 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission served on Whiting and for sanctions.  The motion was set for hearing on September 6, 2024.  Whiting has not filed an opposition. 

PARTY’S REQUESTS 

Plaintiff asks the Court to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Whiting and to impose sanctions. 

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 September 22, 2023, Plaintiff served requests for admission, set one, on Whiting.  Whiting did not serve timely verified responses and had not served verified responses by the time Plaintiff filed this motion on August 8, 2024. 

Although Plaintiff’s motion asserts that Whiting has not served verified responses, Plaintiff does not state whether Whiting served unverified responses.  Unverified responses are appropriate in some cases.  “If the response consists entirely of objections, then only the attorney’s signature is necessary.”  (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2024) ¶ 8:1360, p. 8G-21.)  In addition, “[i]f the response contains both answers and objections, there is no need to verify that portion containing the objections.”  (Ibid.)  Because Plaintiff repeatedly states that Whiting failed to serve “verified” responses (see, e.g., Lopez dec. ¶¶ 3-4), the Court will not assume that Whiting also failed to serve unverified but substantially code-compliant responses.  

The Court denies the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff Adela Bautista Hernandez’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Defendant Iris M. Whiting, Trustee of the Iris M. Whiting 2006 Revocable Trust dated January 13, 2006. 

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.