Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV01549, Date: 2025-01-08 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: 23CHCV01549 Hearing Date: January 8, 2025 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 1/7/25
TRIAL DATE: 6/9/25
Case #23CHCV01549
MOTION TO DEEM
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED, SET 2
Motion filed on 6/5/24.
MOVING PARTY: Defendant MV Transportation
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Luis Barajas
NOTICE: ok
RELIEF REQUESTED: An order to
deem Defendant MV Transportation’s Requests for Admissions, Set 2,
admitted. Additionally, Defendant
requests sanctions against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s attorney of record in
the amount of $1,060.00.
RULING: The motion is granted.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of an incident that occurred on or
about 4/25/22 while Plaintiff Luis Barajas (Plaintiff) was a passenger on a bus
driven by Defendant Mario Aguirre.
Plaintiff alleges that he was forcibly thrown off the bus by another,
unidentified, passenger which caused him to sustain injuries.
On 5/30/23, Plaintiff filed this action for negligence
against certain named defendants and Does 1-20.
On 1/8/24, Plaintiff filed (served on 1/7/24) a First Amended Complaint
alleging causes of action for: (1) Premises Liability – Dangerous Condition of
Public Property; (2) Motor Vehicle and (3) General Negligence.
On 3/14/24, Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority and MV Transportation served Plaintiff with Requests
for Admissions, Set 2. (Weilbacher Decl.
¶2, Ex.A). As of the filing and service of
this motion, Plaintiff had not served any response to the requests. (Id. ¶3).
On 6/5/24, Defendant MV Transportation filed and served
the instant motion seeking an order to deem Defendant MV Transportation’s
Requests for Admissions, Set 2, admitted.
Additionally, Defendant MV Transportation requests sanctions against
Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s attorney of record in the amount of $1,060.00. The motion was originally scheduled for
hearing on 1/6/25. On 12/18/24, the
Court continued the hearing on the motion to 1/8/25, but ordered that the opposition and reply were due pursuant to the
1/6/25 hearing date. (See
12/18/24 Notice of Continuance & Order; 12/23/24 Notice of Continuance). On 12/31/24, Plaintiff filed and served a
late opposition to the motion (served on 12/30/24). See CCP 1005(b) (An opposition was due
9 court days before the original hearing date; however, the opposition is late
according to the original or continued hearing date.). On 1/2/25, Defendant MV Transportation filed
and served a reply to the late 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.
(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.”
(emphasis added)
Plaintiff concedes that the responses to the subject
Requests for Admissions served on 12/17/24 (more than nine months after the
discovery was served and more than six months after the instant motion was
filed and served) include “waived objections” which are incorporated into each
and every response. (See
Opposition, p.2:14-15; Dufour Decl. ¶¶5-6, Ex.A). Additionally, several of the responses are equivocal,
at best, and in bad faith, at worst, as Plaintiff contends that certain of the
requests are unintelligible, when they are not, and, therefore, Plaintiff claims
that he cannot respond. (See
Dufour Decl., Ex.A – responses to RFAs Nos. 43-47, 53). As such, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion,
the late responses which include waived objections and equivocal and/or
bad-faith responses to certain of the requests are not code-compliant or in
substantial compliance with CCP 2033.220.
See CCP 2033.280(c); St. Mary (2014) 223 CA4th 762, 780-782.
In order to be relieved from the waiver of objections,
Plaintiff was required to make a motion for such relief and not merely claim in
a late opposition to deem the matters admitted that the failure to serve timely
responses was the result of Plaintiff being “unaware that on March 13, 2024,
Defendant served RFAs and responses were due April 15, 2024.” (See Opposition, p.5:3-4). Even if a request for relief from waiver of objections
could be made in an opposition to a motion to have the matters deemed admitted,
Plaintiff has failed to establish that his failure to serve timely responses
was the result mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. CCP 2033.280(a)(2). Plaintiff has failed to adequately support the
claim that Plaintiff was not served with the subject RFAs. (See Dufour Decl. ¶15). While Plaintiff’s counsel claims that he “has
search[ed] for the service email but has yet to find it,” Plaintiff’s counsel
does not indicate whether he also searched his “old” service e-mail where the
discovery was served (in addition to another email address at Plaintiff’s
counsel’s office) before notice of Plaintiff’s “new service e-mail” was served
and filed in late September 2024. (See
9/30/24 Notice of Change of Address and Service E-Mail; Motion, Ex.A – pdf 13,
Proof of Service for RFAs). Additionally,
even if Plaintiff’s counsel did not receive the subject discovery served on
3/14/24, Plaintiff’s counsel concedes receipt of the instant motion served on
6/5/24. (See Dufour Decl. ¶4). Plaintiff’s counsel fails to explain why it
took more than six months from the service of this motion to serve responses,
which include waived objections without any attempt to obtain relief from such
waiver. (See Opposition,
generally; Dufour Decl.).
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant MV
Transportation is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admissions, Set
2, admitted.
Further, the imposition of monetary sanctions is
mandatory due to Plaintiff’s failure to serve timely responses. CCP 2033.280(c). The Court finds that Plaintiff’s request for
$1,060.00 in sanctions against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s attorney of record
to be reasonable based on 2.5 hours to review the file and prepare the motion at
$400/hour plus a $60.00 filing fee. (See
Weilbacher Decl. ¶4).
CONCLUSION
The motion is granted.
Defendant MV Transportation’s Requests for Admissions, Set 2, are deemed
admitted. Sanctions are imposed against
Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Michael Ryan Dufour in the amount
of $1,060.00. Sanctions are payable
within 30 days.
The Court notes that in violation of CRC 3.1110(f)(4) the
exhibit attached to the motion is not electronically bookmarked. Counsel for the parties are warned that
failure to comply with the foregoing rule in the future may result in matters
being continued so that papers can be resubmitted in compliance with the rule,
papers not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.