Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV01600, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01600    Hearing Date: May 23, 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

MOTION

            Plaintiff Cary L. Siegfried (Plaintiff) moves to deem admitted the matters specified in Requests for Admission, set one (RFA), propounded on Defendant Sean Anthony Johnson (Defendant).   Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Defendant has not filed an opposition.

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, Plaintiff served the RFA on Defendant on November 28, 2022, electronically, and via mail.  Defendant’s responses were thus due by January 3, 2023.  As of the filing date of the motion, Plaintiff had not received responses from Defendant.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to serve timely responses to the RFA.

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  The Court finds Defendant’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 Defendant, in the amount of $561.65, which represents two hours of attorney time to prepare the moving papers, and attend the hearing, at $250 per hour, plus the motion filing fee of $61.65.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

Further, the Court orders Defendant to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $561.65, to Plaintiff by and through counsel for Plaintiff, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

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