Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 24STCV06996, Date: 2024-10-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV06996 Hearing Date: October 16, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing date: 10/16/2024
Moving Party: KIA AMERICA, INC. (Defendant)
Responding Party: DERRICK
ERVIN, AN INDIVIDUAL (Plaintiff); PHYLLIS ERVIN, AN INDIVIDUAL (Plaintiff)
Motion to Deem Request for Admission Admitted
The court has
considered the moving papers; plaintiffs filed no oppositions.
The motions are
granted.
Defendant Kia
America Inc.’s Motion to Deem Request for Admission, Set One served upon
Plaintiff Derrick Ervin is GRANTED. The truth of each matter specified in
Defendant’s request for Admission, Set One, served upon Derrik Ervin are deemed
admitted and conclusively established.
Defendant Kia
America Inc.’s Motion to Deem Request for Admission, Set One served upon
Plaintiff Phyllis Ervin is GRANTED. The truth of each matter specified in
Defendant’s request for Admission, Set One, served upon Phyllis Ervin are
deemed admitted and conclusively established.
The court
imposes sanctions in the amount of $500 upon Plaintiff Derrick Ervin and his
counsel of record Downtown L.A. Law Group, jointly and severally, payable to
Defendant Kia America Inc.
The court
imposes sanctions in the amount of $500 upon Plaintiff Phyllis Ervin and her
counsel of record Downtown L.A. Law Group, jointly and severally, payable to
Defendant Kia America Inc.
Background
This is a Song Beverly Action. On March
20, 2024, Plaintiffs Derrick Ervin (Derrick) and Phyllis Ervin (Phyllis;
collectively Plaintiffs) filed suit against defendant Kia America Inc
(Defendant). Plaintiffs alleged on March 7, 2022, they purchased a 2023 Kia
Sportage, manufactured by Defendant. Plaintiffs further allege that when they
received the subject vehicle, it had serious defects and nonconformities to the
warranty including, but not limited to, defects to the body system, the
powertrain system, the safety system, the electrical system, and the braking
system. Plaintiffs assert claims under the Song Beverly Act as well as for
breaches of the warranty.
On May 17, 2024, Defendant filed two
motions to deem Requests for Admissions, Set One (RFA) served upon Derrik and
Phyllis respectively. They also requested monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs
and their counsel of record in the amount of $500 for each motion.
Legal Standard
When a party
fails to timely respond to validly served discovery, the serving party may move
for an order to compel discovery responses and sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§
2030.290, subd. (b) [Interrogatories], 2031.300 [RFP], 2033.280 subd. (b)
[RFA].) Regardless of a response prior to the hearing, it “is mandatory that
the court impose a monetary sanction . . . [for] failure to serve a timely
response to request for admission. . .” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280 subd.(c).)
Discussion
Here, on April 12, 2024, Defendant propounded RFAs
upon Derrick and RFAs upon Phyllis. Defendant served the requests via email. (Sniderman
Decl. ISO Derrik Mtn, Ex. A; Sniderman Decl. ISO Phyllis Mtn, Ex. A.) Accordingly, responses were due no later than
May 13, 2024. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§2033.250, subd. (a); 1010.6, subd
(a)(4).) Defendant’s counsel declares, to date, Plaintiffs have not provided
any responses to either set of discovery. (Sniderman Decl. ISO Derrik Mtn, ¶¶
3-4; Sniderman Decl. ISO Phyllis Mtn, ¶¶ 3-4.) Plaintiffs do not oppose the
motions or submit evidence that they ever served responses. Accordingly, based
on the evidence before it, the court grants the motions.
With respect to sanctions, the court
finds the request for a set amount of $500 for each motion appropriate. Counsel
declares he anticipates incurring fees more than $500 for each motion, but
requests this reduced lump sum. The court finds the amount requested exceedingly
reasonable and imposes sanctions in the amount of $500 for each motion.
It is so
ordered.
Dated:
October 16, 2024
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court