Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV27679, Date: 2025-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27679    Hearing Date: April 18, 2025    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff Linda Sheppherd (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Ralphs Grocery Company, Inc. and Does 1-50 for negligence—premises liability. 

On January 19, 2024, Defendant Alpha Beta Company dba Ralphs (incorrectly named and served as Ralphs Grocery Company, Inc.) (“Defendant”) filed an answer. 

On March 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set two, served on Defendant, and for sanctions.  On April 7, 2025, Defendant filed an opposition.  On April 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply. 

Trial is scheduled for July 11, 2025. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Plaintiff asks the Court to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set two, and to impose sanction on Defendant and its counsel. 

Defendant asks the Court to deny the motion. 

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 January 9, 2025, Plaintiff served requests for admission, set two, on Defendant.  In his motion, Plaintiff contends that responses were due on February 11, 2025.  Defendant served unverified responses on February 13, 2025.  On February 20, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel “unilaterally grant[ed] [Defendant] an extension of time up to and including March 3, 2025, in which to provide this office with verifications.”  (Exh. C.)  However, Defendant had not served the verification by the time Plaintiff filed this motion on March 10, 2025.  Plaintiff asks the Court to grant the motion and impose sanctions on Defendant. 

In opposition, Defendant asserts that the responses were due on February 13, 2025, not February 11, 2025, because Plaintiff electronically served the requests and February 12, 2025 was a holiday.  Defendant served the verification on March 12, 2025.  Because Defendant served the responses and verification before the April 18, 2025 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant contends, Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c) prevents the Court from granting Plaintiff’s motion.  Defendant also argues that sanctions are not warranted because Defendant’s counsel acted diligently to obtain verifications. 

In his reply, Plaintiff acknowledges that sanctions are “the sole remaining issue.”  (Reply p. 2.)  Plaintiff asks the Court to impose sanctions on Defendant because Defendant’s failure to serve a timely verification necessitated Plaintiff’s motion. 

The Court denies Plaintiff’s request to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set two, served on Defendant. 

“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 [a] motion” under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) 

Plaintiff requests $1,561.65 in sanctions based on three hours of attorney time at a rate of $500.00 per hour and one $61.65 filing fee.  Counsel spent one hour to prepare the motion and anticipated spending one hour to review the opposition and prepare a reply and one hour to appear at a hearing.  The Court awards Plaintiff $811.65 based on three hours of attorney time at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour and one filing fee. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES in part Plaintiff Linda Sheppherd’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, set two, served on Defendant Alpha Beta Company dba Ralphs (incorrectly named and served as Ralphs Grocery Company, Inc.). 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Linda Sheppherd’s request for sanctions and orders Defendant Alpha Beta Company dba Ralphs and its counsel to pay Plaintiff Linda Sheppherd $811.65 by May 19, 2025. 

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.