Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: BC699678, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC699678    Hearing Date: February 7, 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

            Defendants Emmanuel J. Addo and Ama N. Addo, as Trustees of the Addo 2011 Revocable Trust (collectively, Defendants) moves to deem admitted the matters specified in Requests for Admission, set two (RFA) propounded on Plaintiffs James A. Carter, Sr. and Deborah Carter (collectively, Plaintiffs).  Defendants seek monetary sanctions in connection with the motions.  Plaintiffs have not filed oppositions to the motions. 

            On January 25, 2023 at the initial hearing, the Court continued the hearing to permit the parties to file supplemental papers addressing Plaintiffs’ claim that they were not properly served with the notices of motion and motions.  Defendants’ filed a supplemental brief on January 30, 2023; Plaintiffs have not filed any supplemental papers. 

            As set forth in the proofs of service attendant to the motions, Defendants served the moving papers on Plaintiffs via overnight mail on September 27, 2022 via Federal Express.  Federal Express confirmed that the package was delivered to Plaintiffs’ address of record on September 28, 2022.  (See Defendants’ Supplemental Brief, Exhibits A-B.)  Plaintiffs have not advanced any evidence rebutting the presumption that service of the moving papers was proper.  Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiffs were afforded with notice of the motions as required.  (See Floveyor International, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 795 [filing a proof of service that complies with statutory standards creates a rebuttable presumption that service was proper].) 

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, Defendants served the RFAs on Plaintiffs on May 11, 2022, by personal service.  Plaintiffs’ responses were thus due by June 10, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motions, Defendants have not received responses from Plaintiffs.  Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to serve timely responses to the RFAs.

Defendants request monetary sanctions in connection with the two motions.  The Court finds Plaintiffs’ failure to timely respond to the RFAs 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 each Plaintiff in the amount of $420, which represents two hours of attorney time to prepare the moving papers, and attend the hearing, at $190 per hour, in addition to the filing fee in the amount of $40.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motions to deem admitted matters specified in the RFAs per Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, and orders the matters specified in the RFA propounded to Plaintiffs deemed admitted.

Further, the Court orders each Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $420 to Defendants, by and through counsel for Defendants, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

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