Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV03656, Date: 2024-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03656    Hearing Date: April 25, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Cox v. LMA & LDA 2020 LLC

CASE NO.:                23SMCV03656

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel Initial Discovery Responses

HEARING DATE:   4/25/2024

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(b), a 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 under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). “Failure to timely respond to RFA does not result in automatic admissions. Rather, the propounder of the RFA must ‘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’ under § 2023.010 et seq.” (CCP, § 2033.280(b).) The court “shall” grant the motion to deem RFA admitted, “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.” (CCP, § 2033.280(c).) 

Analysis

            Plaintiff Andrew Cox moves to deem the truth of all matters admitted Requests for Admissions, Set One, served on Defendant Brown Label. Plaintiff requests sanctions in the sum of $1,110.00 against Brown Label and its counsel of record. Brown Label opposes the motion arguing that the RFAs were not properly served. Brown Label also contends that even if they were properly served, the motion is substantively moot because it served verified responses to the RFAs on April 9, 2024. (See Gandhi Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. B.)

            The Court agrees that the motion is moot based on the facially code compliant responses. However, monetary sanctions are mandatory, without exception. The Court must still consider the merits of the motion to determine appropriate sanctions.

            Plaintiff claims to have served the subject RFAs on Defendant on October 27, 2023. (Kilday Decl. ¶3; Ex. A.) The Court agrees that it questionable whether this service was effective. “In case of service by mail, the notice or other paper shall be deposited in a post office, mailbox, subpost office, substation, or mail chute, or other like facility regularly maintained by the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope, with postage paid, addressed to the person on whom it is to be served… at that party's place of residence.” (CCP § 1013(a), emphasis added.) Plaintiff served Defendant via mail, at the agent for service of process’ residential address, but addressed to a non-agent/officer, Kaushik Master. Apparently, Kaushik Master is the father of, and co-habitant with, the true agent for service, Hemal Master. (Master Decl.¶¶1-2; Gandhi Decl.¶4.)

            However, it is undisputed that on February 21, 2024, Plaintiffs also served copies of the discovery requests on Brown Label’s attorney of record. (Kilday Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. B.) To the extent that service was ineffective on October 27, 2023, the February 21, 2024, service was valid. Defendant failed to respond within the time allotted. (CCP § 2033.250(a).) Therefore, the motion was properly brought, and sanctions are mandatory against Brown Label.

            Accordingly, the motion is deemed moot. Sanctions are imposed against Defendant Brown Label and its counsel of record in the total sum of $1,090.00, inclusive of costs. Sanctions to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days.