Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 20STCV41938, Date: 2022-08-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV41938 Hearing Date: August 11, 2022 Dept: 55
TACSIS,
LLC. v. JACKIE ROBINSON, JR. 20STCV41938
Hearing Date: 8/11/22,
Dept. 55
#4: MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
DEFENDANT JACKIE ROBINSON JR. AND HIS COUNSEL IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,775.
Notice: Okay
Opposition
MP:
Plaintiff TACSIS, LLC.
RP:
Defendant JACKIE ROBINSON JR.
Summary
On 11/2/20, plaintiffs TACSIS, LLC, and KENT LIMSON, filed
a Complaint.
On 5/5/22, plaintiffs had a hearing on leave to file a
First Amended Complaint, alleging that Defendants ALL NET, LLC and JACKIE ROBINSON,
JR. breached fraudulently induced promises, including under Business Loans and
Security Agreements, by failing to remit timely payments.
The causes of action of the First Amended Complaint are:
1. BREACH OF CONTRACT –
BUSINESS LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT;
2. BREACH OF CONTRACT –
BOND AND LOAN GUARANTEE;
3. BREACH OF CONTRACT –
MEMORANDUM;
4. BAD FAITH (SURETY);
5. FRAUD;
6. NEGLIGENT
MISREPRESENTATION;
7. PROFESSIONAL
NEGLIGENCE; and
8. COMMON COUNTS.
MP
Positions
Moving party requests an order deeming admitted
requests for admissions, and awarding $3,775 in sanctions against Defendant JACKIE
ROBINSON JR. and his counsel, on bases including the following:
·
One business day before the scheduled
hearing on the motion, Robinson served purported responses, but they were not
in substantial compliance with the Discovery Act.
RP Positions
Opposing party advocates denying, for reasons
including the following:
·
The responses, served before the hearing,
are substantially compliant, in toto.
·
Each individual response is code-compliant
and represents a good faith response based on a reasonable interpretation of some
ambiguous requests.
Tentative
Ruling
The motion is denied as to the request to deem
admitted, and granted as to the request for sanctions.
Sanctions in the amount of $3,775.00 are awarded to Plaintiff TACSIS,
LLC. and against Defendant Jackie Robinson, Jr. and counsel, jointly and
severally.
The Court finds that the responses (attached to the
reply filed 7/25/22) are in substantial compliance, including because many are
unequivocal denials, and some partial admissions and qualifications are
authorized.
"[A] motion to have admission requests deemed
admitted may not be granted where the record establishes ... that (1) proposed
responses to the requests have been served prior to the hearing on the motion
and (2) such responses are in substantial compliance with the provisions of
section 2033, subdivision (f)(1)." Tobin
v. Oris (1992) 3 Cal. App. 4th 814, 828, overruled on other grounds by Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999)
21 Cal. 4th 973, 983 n.12.
Courts evaluate tardy responses to requests for
admissions, in toto, to determine whether they substantially comply with the
code, and do not evaluate each individual response. St. Mary v. Sup. Ct. (2013) 223
Cal.App.4th 762, 779-80.
A response to a request for admission must be an
admission, denial or statement of inability to admit or deny. CCP §2033.220(b). Respondents must admit the part of an
admission request that is true (as expressed in the request, or as reasonably
and clearly qualified ), deny the part that is untrue, and specify the part as
to which the responding party lacks sufficient information. CCP
§2033.220(b); Applera Corp. v. MP
Biomedicals, LLC (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 769, 778-79 n.5.
A respondent cannot be compelled to admit a fact in
discovery. Wimberly v. Derby Cycle
Corp. (1997) 56 Cal. App. 4th 618, 634;
Smith v. Circle P Ranch Co. (1978) 87 Cal. App. 3d 267, 273.
As to a motion to deem matters admitted, moving
parties are entitled to sanctions which are statutorily mandated as to a party
or attorney whose failure to serve timely responses necessitated the
motion. Appleton v. Sup. Ct.
(1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 635; CCP
§2033.280(c).