Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 22LBCV00429, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22LBCV00429    Hearing Date: May 16, 2023    Dept: S27

Plaintiff, in pro per, propounded RPDs on Defendants on 11/23/22.  At the time, Defendants were represented by David C. Loe.  Defendants failed to serve timely responses, and on 2/23/23, Plaintiff filed motions to deem the RFAs admitted.  On 4/10/23, Defendants substituted Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar into the action as their attorneys of record.  On 5/02/23, Defendants filed opposition to the motions.  Defendants, in their opposition, contend (a) the motions cannot be granted because Defendants have served responses in substantial compliance with the Code, and (b) sanctions cannot be imposed because the request for sanctions was not properly noticed and because sanctions should not be imposed solely for punishment.  Any reply to the opposition was due on or before 5/09/23.  The Court has not received timely reply papers.

CCP §2033.280(c) precludes the Court from issuing an order deeming RFAs admitted if responses, in substantial compliance with the Code, are served prior to the hearing.  Because Defendants have served responses, the motions are substantively moot and denied.

CCP §2033.280(c) absolutely requires the Court to impose sanctions on a party whose conduct caused the filing of a motion to deem RFAs admitted.  There is no good cause or substantial justification clause similar to that found in the parallel Code provisions governing interrogatories and production demands.  Notably, none of the case law cited by Defendants in opposition to the motion was decided in the context of §2033.280(c), and it is therefore not on point.

Defendants argue that the notice of motion fails to comply with CCP §2023.040, which requires the notice of motion to identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanctions is sought and to specify the type of sanction sought.  Plaintiff’s notice of motion is inelegant.  It does, however, name Defendant, name his attorney, indicate relief is sought “jointly and severally,” and ask for costs in an amount of at least $260.  The Court finds the notice sufficient.

The Court is concerned, however, about the amount of costs sought.  Plaintiff’s declaration fails to detail the nature of the costs.  The Court is aware that Plaintiff incurred filing fees of $60 in connection with each motion, but cannot award any other costs without enumeration of such costs in the declaration.  The Court therefore awards costs of $60 in connection with each motion.  The costs award is imposed jointly and severally against each of the two defendants ($60 as to each) and their former attorney of record, David C. Loe.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.