Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 19STCP03238, Date: 2023-02-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCP03238 Hearing Date: February 1, 2023 Dept: 26
MOTION
TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED;
REQUEST
FOR SANCTIONS
(CCP
§ 2033.280)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Esurance Insurance Services, Inc.’s Motion to Deem
Requests for Admission Admitted and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED as to REQUESTS
FOR ADMISSION, SET TWO, REQUEST NOS. 12 AND 14, AND DENIED AS TO REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION, SET TWO, REQUEST NOS. 10, 11 AND 13. PLAINTIFF AYANA M. MENDEZ IS ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $582.50
TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.
ANALYSIS:
On November 28, 2022, Defendant Esurance Insurance Services,
Inc. (“Defendant”) served Requests for Admissions on Plaintiff Ayana M. Mendez
(“Plaintiff”). (Motion, Hartley Decl.,
Exh. A.) To date, Plaintiff has not served responses to the Requests for
Admission. (Id. at ¶¶4-5.) Defendant filed the instant Motion to Deem
Requests for Admission Admitted on January 6, 2023. Plaintiff filed opposition
on January 19, 2023, that was untimely served by electronic mail and overnight
delivery on the same date. (Opp., filed 01/19/23, Proof of Service.)
The opposition demonstrates that Plaintiff served responses
to the Requests for Admission, Set Two on January 17, 2023. However, the
responses to Request Nos. 12 and 14 are not in compliance with Code of Civil
Procedure section 2033.220, subdivision (c), which states that “[i]f a
responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a
failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state
in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular
request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is
insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” The responses to
Request Nos. 12 and 14 state that Plaintiff lacks sufficient knowledge or
belief to either admit or deny, but does not state that a reasonable inquiry
has been made. (Opp., Ryan Decl., Exh. A, p. 2.)
The Court does not accept Plaintiff’s contention that
Defendant brought this Motion in bad faith. Plaintiff’s counsel did not reach
out to defense counsel for an extension of the time to respond until December
30, 2022, the date the responses were due. (Opp., Ryan Decl., ¶9.) It does not
appear that any message was left for defense counsel on that date and
Plaintiff’s opposition itself points out that many offices were closed that
week. (Id. at ¶¶8-9.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not leave a message for
defense counsel until January 6, 2023, the same day the instant Motion was filed.
(Id. at ¶10.) The Motion was re-filed on January 9, 2023 because the
initial filing noticed the wrong hearing date.
There is no requirement for a prior meet and confer effort
before a motion to deem requests for admission can be filed. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2033.280.) Further, the motion can be brought any time after the responding
party fails to provide the responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.) Due to
Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve responses and resultant waiver of
objections, Defendant is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for
Admission, Set Two, Nos. 12 and 14, admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)
The Court is also required to award sanctions under the
moving statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Sanctions are granted
against Plaintiff in the amount of $582.50 based on 1.9 hours of attorney time
billed at $275.00 per hour, plus the $60.00 filing fee. (Motion, Hartley Decl.,
¶¶6-8.)
Conclusion
Defendant Esurance Insurance Services, Inc.’s Motion to Deem
Requests for Admission Admitted and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED as to
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET TWO, REQUEST NOS. 12 AND 14, AND DENIED AS TO
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET TWO, REQUEST NOS. 10, 11 AND 13. PLAINTIFF AYANA M.
MENDEZ IS ORDERED TO PAY
SANCTIONS OF $582.50 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.
Moving party to give notice.