Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 23AHCV00492, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00492    Hearing Date: May 4, 2023    Dept: P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

MAX INVESTMENTS, LLC,

 

                                            Plaintiff,

vs.

 

FAN XU, dba TRUTH AND RIGHTEOUSNESS COMPANY, LLC; and DOES 1-20, inclusive,

 

                                            Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 23AHCV00492

 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED

 

Date:   May 4, 2023

Time:  8:30 a.m.

Dept.:  P

 

           

            I.         INTRODUCTION

            This is an unlawful detainer action concerning commercial real property at 132 W. Las Tunas in the City of San Gabriel. Plaintiff Max Investments, LLC (Max) is the landlord, and Defendant Fan Xu (Xu) the tenant. Before the Court is a motion by Max to have matters deemed admitted. Because Xu served substantially compliant responses prior to the hearing, the motion is denied.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

            Code Civ. Proc. 2033.280(a) provides that when a party fails to timely respond to requests for admission, the party waives any objections to them.  A motion is needed for relief from this waiver. Subdivision (b) provides that when a party fails to timely respond the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of the documents and the truth of the matters specified in the requests for admission be deemed admitted, and for monetary sanctions. Subdivision (c) provides that the court must make an order deeming matters admitted unless it finds that prior to the hearing, the responding party has provided responses to the requests for admission that are substantially compliant with §2033.220.  In such an instance, monetary sanctions are mandatory.

 

            III.      ANALYSIS

            Max presents evidence that on March 16, 2023, it served Xu (by personal service) with five sets of discovery, including Requests for Admission, Set One. Max also presents evidence that on March 27, 2023, it received Xu’s responses to all of the discovery except the RFAs. Declaration of Lewis B. Adelson, ¶¶2-5. Adelson sent Xu’s counsel (Randy Chang) an email that day, letting him know that no responses to the RFA’s had been received.  He gave Xu until March 31, 2023, to provide responses. Id. at ¶5.[1]

            The attorneys continued emailing back and forth, mostly about the need for Xu to provide supplemental responses. Adelson did state in at least one subsequent email that he had still not received any responses to the RFAs. How effective these email communications were is debatable; but in the end they are irrelevant since Civil Procedure Code Section 2033.290 contains no meet and confer requirement. St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 777-778.

            In opposition to this motion, Xu presents evidence that he did serve verified responses to the RFAs on March 21, 2023, along with the rest of his responses. Declaration of Randy Chang, ¶8 and Exhibit D and E. In reply, Max questions whether Xu really did serve responses to the RFAs on March 21, 2023.  Max notes that if Xu had responded to the RFA’s, his response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 makes no sense. That interrogatory asks for follow-up information concerning RFA responses that are not “unqualified admissions.” Xu’s response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 is “N/A.”  This would indicate that Xu did not believe that RFAs had been propounded. Exhibit J to Reply Declaration of Adelson.

            Whether Xu served responses to the RFAs on March 21, 2023, as he argues, or whether they were served for the first time in connection with this motion, the motion to deem matters admitted must be denied. Xu has provided responses that are verified and substantially compliant with Code Civ. Proc. §2033.220.  Therefore, an order deeming matters admitted is not authorized. St. Mary, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at 779-780.

            Max urges that the responses are not substantially compliant and that an order deeming matters admitted is still appropriate. To the extent some of the responses are insufficient and give rise to a follow-up motion to compel further responses pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §2033.290, Max will need to file such a follow-up motion.

            The Court will entertain oral argument on the issue of monetary sanctions. The issue turns on whether Xu served responses to the RFAs in March or in response to this motion.

             

IV.      CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            The motion by Max Investment for an order deeming matters admitted is denied because substantially compliant responses were served prior to the hearing.

 

           

Dated:                                                                        _______________________________

                                                                                          MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                                 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

 

 


[1]This email (Exhibit B to the Adelson Declaration) is notable because in it, Adelson states that he is in receipt of Xu’s responses to the five sets of discovery, and then he lists them.  The list includes the requests for admission. But in the second paragraph of the email Adelson states that there were no responses to the requests for admission.