Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV21298, Date: 2024-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV21298    Hearing Date: February 14, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, to Win.it America, Inc. Admitted [and] Request for Monetary Sanctions

Moving Party: State Farm General Insurance Company

Resp. Party:    Win.it America, Inc.

SUBJECT:        Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, to Winit America Trade Company Limited Admitted [and] Request for Monetary Sanctions

Moving Party: State Farm General Insurance Company

Resp. Party:    Winit America Trade Company Limited

The RFAs Motion Against Win.it, Inc. and the RFAs Motion Against Winit Limited are DENIED as moot.

Monetary sanctions are AWARDED for State Farm General Insurance Company and against Win.it America, Inc. in the amount of $1,560.00.

Monetary sanctions are AWARDED for State Farm General Insurance Company and against Winit America Trade Company Limited in the amount of $1,560.00.

BACKGROUND:

        On June 8, 2021, Lisa Labrador, Luis Labrador, Shelby Lane, Maryam Motamed, Candace Saville, Emilee Saville, Kristen Renner, and Sophia Wilson filed their Complaint (“Labrador Complaint”) against Windrose Place, LLC, Cathy O’Conner, Mary Matyseck, and Alan Matyseck on a cause of action for negligence.

        On August 25, 2021, Cathy O’Conner and Windrose Place, LLC filed their Answer to the Labrador Complaint.

        On August 27, 2021, Mary Matyseck and Alan Matyseck filed their Answer to the Labrador Complaint.

        On May 17, 2022, State Farm General Insurance Company filed its Subrogation Complaint (“State Farm Complaint”) in a separate case (Case No. 22AHCV00281) against Mary Matyseck, Alan Matyseck, Shenzhen Unit Pack Power Co. Ltd, DHGate.com, and Wilson Industry I, LLC.

        On June 20, 2022, Wilson Industry I, LLC filed its Answer to the State Farm Complaint in Case No. 22AHCV00281.

        On August 1, 2022, Mary Matyseck and Alan Matyseck filed their Answer to the State Farm Complaint in Case No. 22AHCV00281.

        On October 7, 2022, Mary Matyseck and Alan Matyseck filed another Answer in Case No. 22AHCV00281.

        On November 3, 2022, the Court found related cases 21STCV21298 and 22AHCV00281.

        On December 7, 2022, Wilson Industry I, LLC filed its Answer to Mary Matyseck and Alan Matyseck’s Cross-Complaint in Case No. 22AHCV00281.

        On January 17, 2023, Windrose Place, LLC filed its Answer to Mary Matyseck and Alan Matyseck’s Cross-Complaint in Case No. 22AHCV00281.

        On April 3, 2023, Win.it America, Inc. and Winit America Trade Company Limited filed their Answer to the State Farm Complaint in Case No. 22AHCV00281.

        On May 17, 2023, Windrose Place, LLC filed their Answer to the Cross-Complaint of Win.it America, Inc. and Winit America Trade Company Limited (“Winit Cross-Complaint”) in Case No. 22AHCV00281.

        On May 17, 2023, Win.it America, Inc. and Winit America Trade Company Limited filed their Answer to Windrose Place, LLC’s Cross-Complaint in Case No. 22AHCV00281.

        On May 31, 2023, Mary Matyseck and Alan Matyseck filed their Answer to the Winit Cross-Complaint in Case No. 22AHCV00281.

        On May 31, 2023, Win.it America, Inc. and Winit America Trade Company Limited filed their Answer to the Cross-Complaint of Mary Matyseck and Alan Matyseck (“Matyseck Cross-Complaint”) in Case No. 22AHCV00281.

        On June 1, 2023, the Court relieved Cathy O’Conner’s counsel.

        On June 30, 2023, Win.it America, Inc. and Winit America Trade Company Limited filed their Answer to the Complaint in Intervention in Case No. 22AHCV00281.

        On August 1, 2023, the Court consolidated Cases Nos. 21STCV21298 and 22AHCV00281, and designated Case No. 21STCV21298 as the lead case.

        On January 22, 2024, State Farm General Insurance Company filed its Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, to Win.it America, Inc. Admitted [and] Request for Monetary Sanctions (“RFAs Motion Against Win.it, Inc.”). State Farm General Insurance Company concurrently filed its Proposed Order.

        On January 22, 2024, State Farm General Insurance Company filed its Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, to Winit America Trade Company Limited Admitted [and] Request for Monetary Sanctions (“RFAs Motion Against Winit Limited”). State Farm General Insurance Company concurrently filed its Proposed Order.

        On January 31, 2024, Win.it America, Inc. and Winit America Trade Company Limited filed their respective oppositions.

        On February 7, 2024, State Farm General Insurance Company filed its respective replies.

ANALYSIS:

I.          Legal Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom the request for admissions is directed within 30 days after service of the request for admissions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).)

If the party fails to serve a timely response, “the party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

The requesting party may then “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 monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

A court will deem requests admitted, “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. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) 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).)

II.       Discussion

A.      The Discovery Requests

State Farm General Insurance Company moves the Court to deem admitted the requests in the requests for admission (“RFAs”) against Win.it America, Inc. and Winit America Trade Company Limited. (RFAs Motion Against Win.it, Inc., p. 5:18–20; RFAs Motion Against Winit Limited, p. 5:21–23.)

In their respective oppositions, Win.it America, Inc. and Winit America Trade Company Limited submit evidence to the Court that indicates responses to the RFAs were served on January 26, 2024. (Opposition to RFAs Motion Against Win.it, Inc., Exh. C; Opposition to RFAs Motion Against Winit Limited, Exh. C.)

State Farm General Insurance Company notes that these responses are late and only filled with objections and denials. (Reply to RFAs Motion Against Win.it, Inc., p. 2:11–13; Reply to RFAs Motion Against Winit Limited, p. 2:12–14.)

It is undisputed that the responses are late and that they are filled with objections and denials. But ultimately, after the boilerplate objections, the responding parties have responded to the RFAs. They need only have provided affirmations, denials, or notice of lack of information to the RFAs, and they have done so.

Thus, these motions are moot.

The Court DENIES as moot the RFAs Motion Against Win.it, Inc. and the RFAs Motion Against Winit Limited.

B.      Sanctions

State Farm General Insurance Company requests $3,060.00 in monetary sanctions for each of the motions. (RFAs Motion Against Win.it, Inc., p. 5:18–20; RFAs Motion Against Winit Limited, p. 5:21–23.)

It appears that Win.it America, Inc.’s and Winit America Trade Company Limited’s responses to the discovery motions were untimely.

The Court finds no evidence showing that there was substantial justification or other circumstances that would make the imposition of a sanction unjust. Thus, the Court must impose a monetary sanction on Win.it America, Inc. and Winit America Trade Company Limited.

Counsel for State Farm General Insurance Company declares: (1) that their hourly rate is $500.00 per hour; (2) that they will have spent six hours on each of these discovery motions; and (3) that they incurred a $60.00 filing fee for each of these motions. (RFAs Motion Against Win.it, Inc., Decl. Letofsky, ¶ 6; RFAs Motion Against Winit Limited, Decl. Letofsky, ¶ 6.)

The Court finds that the hourly rate and costs incurred are reasonable. However, the hours incurred for the hearings are duplicative, and the motions are unlikely to have taken as long as claimed. The Court will allow monetary sanctions for a total of six hours of work (three hours per motion), plus the costs for the motions (also split by motion).

The Court AWARDS monetary sanctions for State Farm General Insurance Company and against Win.it America, Inc. in the amount of $1,560.00.

The Court AWARDS monetary sanctions for State Farm General Insurance Company and against Winit America Trade Company Limited in the amount of $1,560.00.

III.     Conclusion

The RFAs Motion Against Win.it, Inc. and the RFAs Motion Against Winit Limited are DENIED as moot.

Monetary sanctions are AWARDED for State Farm General Insurance Company and against Win.it America, Inc. in the amount of $1,060.00.

Monetary sanctions are AWARDED for State Farm General Insurance Company and against Winit America Trade Company Limited each in the amount of $1,560.00.