Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV23457, Date: 2024-07-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV23457    Hearing Date: July 1, 2024    Dept: 61

NEIL ANENBERG vs ANTONETTE ISHAM, et al. (Commercial)

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Neil Anenberg’s Motion to Deem Matters Admitted Against Defendant Antonette Isham is GRANTED. Sanctions are awarded against Defendant and payable to moving party in the amount of $1,722.50, in 30 days.

Plaintiff to give notice.

DISCUSSION

I. MOTION TO COMPEL & DEEM ADMITTED

A propounding party may demand a responding party to produce documents that are in their possession, custody or control. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010.) A party may likewise conduct discovery by propounding interrogatories to another party to be answered under oath. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010, subd. (a).) The responding party must respond to the production demand either by complying, by representing that the party lacks the ability to comply, or by objecting to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) The responding party must respond to the interrogatories by answering or objecting. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).) If the responding party fails to serve timely responses, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to the production demand and interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

A party who fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories or a demand for inspection waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) Likewise, “[a]ny party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.010.) If a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admissions, “[t]he 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” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280 subd. (b).)

A party who fails to timely respond to requests for admission waives all objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff Neil Anenberg served requests for admission upon Defendant Antonette Isham on March 31, 2024. (Nussbaum Decl. ¶¶ 2–3.) Because this is an unlawful detainer action, responses were due within five days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.250, subd. (b).) No responses were served, however, by April 29, 2024. (Nussbaum Decl. ¶¶ 2–3.)

Plaintiff has shown that requests for admission were propounded, at that no responses have been given. Defendant has filed no opposition to the motion.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.

II. SANCTIONS

The prevailing party on a motion to compel is generally entitled to monetary sanctions, unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.) Sanctions are also mandatory against a party whose failure to serve responses to requests for admission makes the motion necessary. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff seeks $2,197.50 for this motion, representing 3.5 hours of attorney work at $475 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee. (Nussbaum Decl. ¶ 5.) This accounting yields a maximum sanctions award of $1,722.50 (3.5 hours x $475 plus a $60 filing fee), and it is unclear how the total sanctions figure sought by Plaintiff is derived. (Ibid.)

Sanctions are awarded against Defendant in the amount of $1,722.50.