Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 22PSCV00137, Date: 2025-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 22PSCV00137, Date: 2025-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00137 Hearing Date: March 5, 2025 Dept: 6

CASE NAME: Rolando Escareno v. Jack Weichman, Inc.

Defendant Jack Weichman, Inc.’s Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted of Plaintiff Rolando Escareno re Request for Admissions, Set Two

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court GRANTS Defendant Jack Weichman, Inc.’s motion to deem admissions admitted of Plaintiff Roland Escareno re Request for Admissions (Set Two). The Court hereby deems the truth of the matters specified in Request for Admissions (Set Two) admitted and conclusively established as to Plaintiff.

The Court further GRANTS Defendant Jack Weichman, Inc.’s request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $560.00. Plaintiff must pay said monetary sanctions to Defendant’s counsel within 30 days of the Court’s order.

Defendant Jack Weichman, Inc. is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract action. On February 9, 2022, plaintiff Rolando Escareno (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Jack Weichman, Inc. (Defendant) and Does 1 to 20, alleging one cause of action for breach of contract.

Effective August 22, 2024, Jay S. Bloom, Esq. was relieved as Plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff is now self-represented.

On January 29, 2025, Defendant moved to deem admitted Request for Admissions, Set Two, against Plaintiff. The motion is unopposed.

LEGAL STANDARD

When a party fails to serve a timely response to a request for admission, the party propounding the request for admission may move for an order to deem the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Id., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “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… on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Id., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

Although meeting and conferring is not required before bringing motions to compel, the Court appreciates Defendant’s efforts to meet and confer by telephone before bringing this motion. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404; Balderas Decl., ¶ 7.)

Analysis

Defendant seeks to deem admitted Request for Admissions (Set Two) against Plaintiff. Defendant indicates having served these discovery requests on Plaintiff on October 10, 2024. (Balderas Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. A.) Defendant indicates that no responses have been received as of the filing of this motion. (Balderas Decl., ¶ 10.) The Court finds Defendant’s motion well taken and GRANTS it. The Court hereby deems the truth of the matters specified in Request for Admissions (Set Two) admitted and conclusively established as to Plaintiff.

The Court further GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions, but in the reduced amount of $560.00, comprised of 1.5 hours preparing the motion and 1.0 hour appearing at the hearing on the motion, for a total of 2.5 hours, multiplied by the hourly rate of $200.00, plus the $60.00 filing fee. Plaintiff must pay said monetary sanctions to Defendant’s counsel within 30 days of the Court’s order.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Jack Weichman, Inc. is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.