Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV06260, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV06260    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTIONS

            Defendant Hughes Bryant (Defendant) moves to deem admitted the matters specified in Requests for Admission, set one (RFA) propounded on Plaintiff Edward Lee (Plaintiff).   Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion. 

ANALYSIS

            Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (a), “[i]f a party to whom requests or admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . .  [t]he 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[.]”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)  Where a party fails to respond to requests for admissions, the propounding 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.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

Here, Defendant served the RFA on Plaintiff on October 6, 2022, electronically.  Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by November 9, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motion, Defendant has not received responses from Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses to the RFA.

Defendant requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the RFA to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2033.280, subd. (c).)  Accordingly, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, Hesam Yazdanpanah of the Law Offices D. Hess Panah & Associates, [1] in the amount of $510, which represents two hours of attorney time to prepare the moving papers, and attend the hearing, at $225 per hour, in addition to the filing fee in the amount of $60.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in the RFA per Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, and deems admitted the matters specified in the RFA propounded to Plaintiff.

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff and his counsel of record, Hesam Yazdanpanah of the Law Offices D. Hess Panah & Associates, jointly and severally to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $510 to Defendant, by and through counsel for Defendant, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.