Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV45207, Date: 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45207    Hearing Date: December 16, 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 Coa Son Do (“Defendant”) moves to deem admitted the matters specified in Requests for Admission (RFA) Set One (“RFA”), served on Plaintiff Jason Neil Henkey (“Plaintiff”). Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record.

Defendant 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 RFA on Plaintiff on August 2, 2022, electronically. Plaintiff’s responses to the RFAs were due by September 6, 2022.  However, Plaintiff failed to respond. When Defense counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel inquiring about the responses, Plaintiff’s counsel never responded. As of the date of filing this motion, Plaintiff has not served any responses to the RFAs. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to serve timely responses 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 [1] in the amount of $560, which represents two hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $250 per hour, plus the filing fee of $60.00.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $560 to Defendant, 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.