Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 23CHCV00673, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV00673, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV00673 Hearing Date: November 21, 2024 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 11/21/24 TRIAL DATE: 2/18/25

Case #23CHCV00673

MOTION TO DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED

Motion filed on 10/1/24.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Siegfred Conson

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Robert Moynihan

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order deeming Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set 1, served on Defendant Robert Moynihan on 8/15/24 admitted. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and/or his counsel, Collison, Daehnke, Inlow & Greco, in the amount of $1,500.00.

RULING: The motion is denied, in part, and granted, in part, as set forth below.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of a motor vehicle v. bicycle collision that occurred on 10/22/21 in Santa Clarita. Plaintiff Siegfred Conson (Plaintiff) alleges that while making a right turn, Defendant Robert Moynihan (Defendant) struck Plaintiff while Plaintiff was riding his bicycle within the cross-walk on a green light.

On 3/8/23, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant and Patricia Moynihan for negligence. On 4/14/23, Defendant and Patricia Moynihan answered the complaint.

On 8/15/24, Plaintiff electronically served his Request for Admissions, Set 1, on Defendant. (Herron Decl., Ex.1). No responses were received; therefore, on 9/19/24, Plaintiff’s counsel’s office sent a meet and confer email to Defendant’s counsel requesting complete, verified responses, without objection, within 7 days. (Gordon Decl., Ex.1). No response to the meet and confer letter was received and Defendant failed to serve responses to the Requests for Admissions. (Gordon Decl.; Herron Decl.).

On 10/1/24, Plaintiff filed and electronically served the instant motion seeking an order deeming Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set 1, served on Defendant Robert Moynihan on 8/15/24 admitted. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and/or his counsel, Collison, Daehnke, Inlow & Greco, in the amount of $1,500.00. Defendant has opposed the motion and Plaintiff has filed a reply to the opposition.

ANALYSIS

CCP 2033.280 provides:

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

(a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.

(2) The party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

(b) The requesting 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).

(c) The court shall make this order, 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. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”

Defendant admits that the responses to the Requests for Admissions were not timely served and claims that the failure to do so was the result of mistake, inadvertence and/or excusable neglect. (See Lloyd Decl.). It then appears that Defendant is attempting to obtain relief from the waiver of objections due to the failure to timely serve responses. However, Defendant then claims the responses without objections have been served. (See Opposition, p.2:11-p.3:2). As such, Defendant contends the motion is moot because responses in compliance with CCP 2033.220(b) have been served before the hearing. See CCP 2033.280(c). Based on the fact that the failure to served timely responses was the result of counsel’s mistake, Defendant’s counsel asks that the Court “void any sanction award” or “to award deminimus sanctions.” (See Opposition, p.3:16-17).

The reply argues that the First Amended Responses to the Requests for Admissions still improperly include objections. As such, Plaintiff contends that he is “entitled to complete and verified RFA responses, that only admit and contain no objections, along with sanctions in the amount of $1,568.91” (increased from $1,500.00 requested in the motion to include the filing fee). (See Reply, p.4:11-14).

To the extent Defendant is seeking relief from the waiver of objections due to the failure to serve timely responses, such relief is denied. Defendant has failed to properly request such relief by way of a motion as required under CCP 2033.280(a). Even if requesting such relief in the opposition to a motion to deem matters admitted was appropriate, Defendant has failed to establish that the responses served are in substantial compliance with CCP 2033.210, 2033.220 and 2033.230.

The Court finds that the arguments raised in the reply regarding the deficiencies in the First Amended Responses to the Requests for Admissions would be more properly addressed in a motion to compel further responses which would allow Defendant the opportunity to respond to such arguments. To avoid any prejudice to Plaintiff based on the 45 day deadline for such a motion as set forth in CCP 2033.290(c), the Court orders that Plaintiff has 45 days from the date of the ruling on this motion to bring such a motion after meeting and conferring with Defendant’s counsel regarding the First Amended Responses.

The Court finds that sanctions against Defendant and his counsel are mandatory because the failure to serve timely responses necessitated the motion. CCP 2033.280(c). The Court finds that the $1,568.91 requested by Plaintiff to be reasonable. (See Herron Decls. submitted in support of the motion and reply).

CONCLUSION

The request to deem Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set 1, served on Defendant Robert Moynihan admitted is denied. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant Robert Moynihan and his counsel, Collison, Daehnke, Inlow & Greco, in the amount of $1,568.91 is granted. Sanctions are payable within 30 days.

Plaintiff shall have 45 days from the date of the ruling on this motion to file and serve a motion to compel further responses regarding the First Amended Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set 1, served by Defendant.

The Court notes that in violation of CRC 3.1110(f)(4) Plaintiff has failed to electronically bookmark the exhibits submitted in support of the moving papers (the exhibits submitted in support of the reply are electronically bookmarked) and Defendant has failed to electronically bookmark the exhibits submitted in support of the opposition. Counsel for the parties are warned that failure to comply with this rule in the future may result in matters being continued so that papers can be resubmitted in compliance, papers not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.