Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV17181, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV17181    Hearing Date: September 8, 2022    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

MOTION

            Defendant Gene Bae moves to deem admitted matters specified in Requests for Admissions, set one (“RFA”), which Defendant propounded on Plaintiff Alfredo Miguel.  Defendant seeks monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion. 

ANALYSIS

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).)  The court “shall” grant a motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admissions, “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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) 

Here, Defendant served the RFA on Plaintiff on November 9, 2021, electronically.  Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by December 13, 2021.  As of the date of the filing of the motion, Defendant has not received a response from Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to serve a timely response to the RFA.

Defendant requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion. “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under [Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, et seq.] on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Casado Law Firm, APLC, in the amount of $600, which represents three hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $180 per hour, plus the filing fee 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. 

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Casado Law Firm, APLC, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $600 to Defendant, by and through counsel for Defendant, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

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