Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV17181, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV17181    Hearing Date: September 15, 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. 

NOTE:  TWO TENTATIVE RULINGS BELOW

TENTATIVE RULING - NO. 1

MOTION

            Defendant Gene Bae moves to deem admitted matters specified in Requests for Admissions, set one (“RFA”), which Defendant propounded on plaintiffs Yerick Miguel Juan, Cory Beatriz Juan Pablo, Axel Miguel Juan, and Allen Miguel Juan (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).  Defendant seeks monetary sanctions.  Plaintiffs have not filed oppositions to the motions. 

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 Plaintiffs on November 9, 2021, electronically.  Plaintiffs’ responses were thus due by December 13, 2021.  As of the date of the filing of the motions, Defendant has not received responses from Plaintiffs.  Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiffs have failed to serve timely responses to the RFA.

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  The Court finds Plaintiffs’ failure to timely respond to the subject discovery requests to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2033.280, subd. (c).)  Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against each plaintiff and their counsel of record, Casado Law Firm, APLC, in the amount of $420, which represents two hours of attorney time to prepare the respective motions and attend the hearing at $180 per hour, plus the filing fee of $60 per motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motions 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 as to each Plaintiff. 

Further, the Court orders each Plaintiff and their counsel of record, Casado Law Firm, APLC, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $420 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.

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 - NO. 2

MOTION

            Defendant Gene Bae move to compel responses from plaintiff Allen Miguel Juan to Request for Production of Documents, set one (“RPD”).  Defendant requests monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it . . . [t]he party to whom the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subds. (a)-(b).)  

Here, Defendant served the RPD on Plaintiff on November 9, 2021, electronically.  Plaintiff’s response was thus due by December 13, 2021.  As of the filing date 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 RPD.

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the subject discovery request to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2031.300, subd. (c).)  Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, Casado Law Firm, APLC, in the amount of $420, which represents two 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 compel Plaintiff’s responses to the RPD per Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, and orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses to the RPD, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff and his counsel of record, Casado Law Firm, APLC, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $420 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.