Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV07565, Date: 2024-06-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV07565    Hearing Date: June 13, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On April 5, 2023, Plaintiff Shaletia Michelle Cummings (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) and Does 1-25 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. 

On June 26, 2023, Defendant filed an answer. 

On September 15, 2023, the Court found that this case (23STCV07565) and case number 23STCV07945 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).  Case number 23STCV07565 became the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes. 

On May 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission and for sanctions, to be heard on June 13, 2024.  On May 31, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition.  On June 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply. 

Trial is currently scheduled for October 2, 2024. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

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

Defendant asks the Court to deny the motion and to impose sanctions on Plaintiff. 

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 June 27, 2023, Plaintiff served requests for admission, set one, on Defendant.  Plaintiff granted Defendant several extensions of time to serve responses. On January 17, 2024 (the last day to serve responses), Defendant served unverified, objection-only responses.

Plaintiff argues that the Court should deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admission, and impose sanctions on Defendant, because Defendant did not serve verified substantive responses to the requests for admission. 

The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.  Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.210, subdivision (b), authorizes objections to requests for admission.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.210, subd. (b) [“Each response [to a request for admission] shall answer the substance of the requested admission, or set forth an objection to the particular request” (emphasis added)].) 

Verifications are not required for objection-only responses.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.240, subd. (a) [“The party to whom the requests for admission are directed shall sign the response under oath, unless the response contains only objections” (emphasis added)].) 

If Plaintiff took issue with Defendant’s objections, Plaintiff's remedy was to file a motion to compel further responses to the requests for admission under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290.  Plaintiff did not file a motion to compel further responses.  Instead, even though Defendant had served responses to the requests for admission, Plaintiff filed a misplaced motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests. 

Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant "fail[ed] to serve a timely response" to Plaintiff's requests for admission for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280.  The Court therefore denies the motion. 

The Court also denies Defendant’s request for sanctions.  Defendant asserts that it served further responses to the requests for admission on May 15, 2024, but the further responses attached to Defendant’s opposition do not include a verification.

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff Shaletia Michelle Cummings’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one. 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff Shaletia Michelle Cummings’s request for sanctions. 

The Court DENIES Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s request for sanctions. 

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.