Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 21STCV16457, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 21STCV16457, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV16457 Hearing Date: March 1, 2024 Dept: 30

KENNETH WELLBECK vs KIMBERLY GUTIERREZ

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motion to deem admissions admitted is DENIED as moot.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED for inadequate notice.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Legal Standard

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: 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…. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(b).) 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…. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).)

“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(c).)

Discussion

On November 6, 2023, Plaintiff served Request for Admissions on Defendant. (Petale Decl., Exh. 1.) To date, responses have not been provided.

Defendant filed a late opposition and argues verified responses have been provided now, and that the Court should not impose sanctions because it would be unjust.

“A trial court has broad discretion to overlook late-served papers and to resolve the matter on the merits.” (Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 162, 168 [“(E)ven if the service had been untimely, the trial court was vested with discretion to overlook the defect”]; see also Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765 [“A trial court has broad discretion under rule 3.1300(d) of the Rules of Court to refuse to consider papers served and filed beyond the deadline without a prior court order finding good cause for late submission.”].) The court exercises its discretion and considers the merits of the opposition.

As verified responses have been provided prior to the hearing on this motion, the motion to deem requests for admissions admitted is moot.

Plaintiff also requests sanctions. Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem the truth of the matter in the requests for admissions admitted. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) However, Code of Civil Procedure 2023.040 states: “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought.” Plaintiff’s motion fails to do so and thus, the request for sanctions is denied for inadequate notice.