Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV18872, Date: 2025-04-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV18872 Hearing Date: April 28, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers and notice of non-opposition, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On August 8, 2023, Plaintiff Reginald Dewaine Mannings (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants County of Los Angeles operating as LA General Medical Center, Allied Universal, and Does 1-10 for premises liability.
On December 27, 2023, Defendant County of Los Angeles (erroneously sued and served as County of Los Angeles operating as LA General Medical Center) (“County”) filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-50 for equitable indemnification, equitable contribution, apportionment, and declaratory relief.
On February 20, 2024, Defendant Universal Protection Service, LP (erroneously sued as Allied Universal) (“UPS”) filed an answer.
On February 25, 2025, UPS filed a motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one. The motion was set for hearing on April 28, 2025. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. On April 21, 2025, UPS filed a notice of non-opposition stating that Plaintiff served verified objection-free responses to the requests for admission on March 4, 2025. UPS contended, however, that the responses did not substantially comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.210 et seq.
Trial is currently scheduled for August 5, 2025.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
UPS asks the Court to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served 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.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220 provides:
“(a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.
“(b) Each answer shall:
“(1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.
“(2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue.
“(3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.
“(c) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220.)
On January 21, 2025, UPS served requests for admission, set one, on Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not serve timely responses.
On February 25, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel sent UPS’s counsel an email stating: “It appears that our discovery responses were due yesterday to you but there was an oversight on our end. We can get these responses to you in 2 weeks from today, 3/11/25, with the understanding that objections are waived. Please let me know if that is agreeable with you.” (Marcoly dec. ¶ 5 & exh. C.)
Instead of granting Plaintiff’s counsel’s reasonable request, UPS filed this motion the same day (February 25, 2025). (See, e.g., Los Angeles Superior Court Guidelines for Civility in Litigation, guideline (a)(1) (contained in Appendix 3.A. to Los Angeles County Court Rules).) UPS argues it was justified in filing a motion because Plaintiff previously had not provided timely discovery responses and the trial was set for August 5, 2025. Counsel for UPS told Plaintiff’s counsel that UPS would withdraw the motion if Plaintiff served code-compliant responses by March 4, 2025.
On March 4, 2025, Plaintiff served objection-free verified responses to UPS’s requests for admission. However, UPS did not withdraw its motion, asserting that Plaintiff’s responses do not substantially comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.210 et seq.
“The court shall [order that the truth of matters specified in the requests for admission be deemed 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, subd. (c).)
UPS argues that Plaintiff’s responses do not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220 because, “Though each of Plaintiff’s responses to the Requests for Admissions states ‘Admit’, ‘Deny’, or ‘Unable to admit or deny,’ the bases for many of the denials or lack of information as stated in Plaintiff’s corresponding response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 are improper.” (Notice of Non-Opposition p. 4.) According to UPS:
“In support of his denial that he has ‘no evidence to support [his] allegation that [he] was injured as a result of any negligent act or omission of [UPS], Plaintiff stated only that ‘[Plaintiff] spoke to multiple individuals on the date of the incident regarding how the INCIDENT occurred.’ (Marcoly Decl., ¶ 3 RFA No. 1 and ¶ 4). This is a non-response. Plaintiff did not identify any evidence in support of his denial. Similarly, Plaintiff denied that he has ‘no evidence to support [his] cause of action for premises liability against [UPS].’ However, Plaintiff’s response contains only allegations and once again fails to state a single piece of evidence supporting his cause of action. (Marcoly Decl., ¶ 3, RFA No. 19 and ¶ 4). Plaintiff’s denials are not in good faith and do not comply with the Code.” (Notice of Non-Opposition p. 4.)
(See also Notice of Non-Opposition p. 5 [UPS argues: “As Plaintiff’s facts that ‘support’ his denial are evasive and not based on admissible evidence or even Plaintiff’s own testimony, his responses to the at-issue Requests for Admission are not in substantial compliance with CCP Section 2033.220. Plaintiff’s responses are not complete nor straightforward as the information reasonably available to Plaintiff permits”].)
None of these arguments identifies a failure to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.
UPS also notes that Plaintiff stated he was “unable to admit or deny” four of the 28 requests for admission but Plaintiff did not state whether he had made a reasonable inquiry or whether the information known or reasonably obtainable was insufficient to enable Plaintiff to admit the matter. Assuming these four responses did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220, subdivision (c), the Court finds that these four responses do not prevent Plaintiff’s responses as a whole from substantially complying with the statute.
The Court denies UPS’s request to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, because Plaintiff served responses to UPS’s requests for admission before the hearing on UPS’s motion that are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure 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, subd. (c).) Although UPS is entitled to sanctions under this provision, UPS has not requested sanctions or provided information that would allow the Court to calculate a sanctions award. Therefore, the Court does not award sanctions.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES the motion filed by Defendant Universal Protection Service, LP (erroneously sued as Allied Universal) to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set one, served on Plaintiff Reginald Dewaine Mannings.
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.