Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV28896, Date: 2024-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28896    Hearing Date: April 3, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 3, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion: Motion to Deem the Truth of the Matters in Request for Admissions Set 1, Admitted

Moving Party: Plaintiff Carolina Esparza

Responding Party: Defendant Collazo Chiropractic, Inc.

T/R:     Motion is denied as moot. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $1,876.02, payable within 30 days.

PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

            The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On September 6, 2022, Plaintiffs Carolina Esparza and Jennifer Rojas filed a Complaint alleging violations of the Labor Code against Defendants Collazo Chiropractic Inc., (CCI) and Dr. Jean Collazo, D.C. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to Deem the Truth of the Matters in Request for Admissions Set 1 Admitted as against Defendant Collazo Chiropractic, Inc., and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,876.02.

DISCUSSION

                Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.250, provides, in pertinent part, that “[w]ithin 30 days after service of the request for admissions . . . the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party.” Requests for admission must be deemed admitted where no responses in substantial compliance are served before the hearing. (CCP §2033.280(c).)

            “[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 as a whole 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.)

             Esparza states that on January 16, 2024, Requests for Admission (Set 1) were propounded on CCI by overnight mail and email; the deadline to respond was February 20, 2024. (Gomez Decl., ¶ 2-3.) After no responses were served, Plaintiff’s counsel reached out to Defense counsel and requested that responses be served without objections by March 1, 2024. (Gomez Decl., ¶ 4.) Responses were not served by that date.

            CCI states that responses have now been served. The motion is moot.

Even if discovery responses have been served, the Court may still award sanctions. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407.)  Plaintiff seeks sanctions and costs totaling $1,876.02. The request is reasonable; the Court imposes sanctions against Defendant CCI in the total amount of $1,876.02.