Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV08864, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV08864 Hearing Date: December 19, 2022 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion to Deem as Admitted Requests for Admissions and Request for
Sanctions Against Plaintiff
Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Carmen Lujan
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Combined Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and
Requests for Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions Against
Plaintiff
Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Carmen Lujan
Resp. Party: None
Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Motion to Deem
as Admitted RFAs is DENIED as moot.
Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Motion to Compel Responses to FROGs and RPDs
is GRANTED. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant shall have 20 days from the issuance of
this Order to serve his responses.
Sanctions are AWARDED for Defendant/Cross-Complainant
and against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant in the amount of $800.00.
PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:
At the time the Court posted its
tentative on December 12, 2022, Plaintiff had not responded to the Defendant’s
discovery motions, and had not provided any responses to any discovery,
including the Requests for Admission. On
December 14, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration stating that
Plaintiff had just served his responses to the Requests for Admission. Plaintiff’s
counsel also stated that he agreed with the sanctions imposed in the Court’s
tentative decision.
BACKGROUND:
On March 11, 2022, Plaintiff Darren Craig,
Trustee of the James E. Craig Bypass Trust under Declaration of Trust dated
December 28, 1994, filed his Complaint against Carmen I. Lujan on causes of
action for negligence, trespass, and injunctive relief.
On May 17, 2022, Defendant/Cross-Complainant
filed: (1) Verified Answer to the Complaint; and (2) Cross-Complaint against
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Craig on causes of action for nuisance and trespass.
On June 21, 2022, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
filed his Answer to the Cross-Complaint.
On November 16, 2022,
Defendant/Cross-Complainant filed: (1) Motion to Deem as Admitted Requests for
Admissions and Request for Sanctions Against Plaintiff (“Motion to Deem as
Admitted RFAs”); and (2) Combined Motion to Compel Responses to Form
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and Request for
Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff (“Motion to Compel Responses to FROGs and
RPDs”).
On December 12, 2022,
Defendant/Cross-Complainant filed Notices regarding Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s
failure to file oppositions or other responses to the motions.
ANALYSIS:
I.
Motion for Admissions
A.
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
motion to deem admitted requests for admissions lies based upon a showing of
failure to respond timely. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b); Demyer
v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395
[disapproved on other grounds by Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th
973, 983]; Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2013) ¶
8:1370.) Requests for admissions must be deemed admitted where no responses in
substantial compliance were served before the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2033.280, subd. (c); Edmon & Karnow, supra, at ¶ 8:1375.)
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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280,
subd. (c).) “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).)
B. Analysis
1.
The
Requests for Admission
The following are the requests for admission
that Defendant/ Cross-Complainant moves the Court to admit and conclusively
establish for all purposes in this action.
Request
for Admission No. l:
Admit that the concrete driveway which YOU
allege in YOUR Complaint is encroaching on YOUR property has been removed and
no longer encroaches on YOUR property. (For purposes of these Requests for
Admission, "YOU" or "YOUR" refers to Plaintiff Darren
Craig, Trustee of the James E. Craig Bypass Trust under Declaration of Trust
Dated December 2nd, 1994.)
Request
for Admission No. 2:
Admit that the fence which YOU allege in YOUR
Complaint is encroaching on YOUR property has been moved and no longer
encroaches on YOUR property.
Request
for Admission No. 3:
Admit that YOU have not suffered any damages
due to the encroaching driveway described in YOUR complaint.
Request
for Admission No. 4:
Admit that YOU have not suffered any damages
due to the encroaching fence described in YOUR complaint.
Request
for Admission No. 5:
Admit that YOU have no evidence supporting
the contention made in YOUR Complaint that Defendant Lujan "has profited
from using the Craig Property" for parking purposes for Defendant's
tenants.
Request
for Admission No. 6:
Admit that YOU have no grounds for injunctive
relief against Defendant
(Motion
to Deem as Admitted RFAs, Ex. A, Attachment 1.)
2.
Admittance of These Requests
On September 15, 2022,
Defendant/Cross-Complainant propounded Requests for Admission on
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant. (Motion to Deem as Admitted RFAs, p. 3:14–15 and Ex.
A, Proof of Service.) With a two-week extension Defendant/Cross-Complainant
granted Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, responses were due on November 3, 2022.
According to Defendant/Cross-Complainant, “[n]o response have been received.” (Id.
at p. 3:23–24.)
However, as stated above in its “Preliminary
Comments,” it appears that Plaintiff has now belatedly served its responses to
the Requests for Admission. Therefore, the
request to deem the Requests for Admission admitted is denied as moot.
3.
Sanctions
Defendant/Cross-Complainant requests
sanctions against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant.
As Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant has failed to
serve a timely response to requests for admission, which necessitated this
motion, the Court must impose a monetary sanction on Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Counsel
declares that they spent one hour preparing the Motion to Deem as Admitted RFAs
and anticipates spending another 1.5 hours attending the hearing, all at a rate
of $375.00 per hour. (Motion to Deem as Admitted RFAs, Decl. Strohmeyer, ¶ 4.)
Yet the Motion is unopposed and Plaintiff’s counsel has filed a declaration
agreeing to pay the sanctions imposed by the tentative decision; the Court
assumes that the entire hearing on all three motions will take no more than 10
minutes.
The Court AWARDS sanctions for
Defendant/Cross-Complainant and against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant in the amount
of $400.00.
II.
Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and
to Requests for Production of Documents
A.
Legal
Standard
California
Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom form
interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand requests are propounded
within 30 days after service of the requests, unless the time is extended by
agreement of the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (a), 2030.270,
subd. (a), 2031.260, subd. (a), 2031.270, subd. (a).) If a party fails to serve
timely responses, "the party making the demand may move for an order
compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).)
By failing to respond, the offending party waives any objection to the demand.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)
For
a motion to compel, all a propounding party must show is that it properly
served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that
the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely
response. (See Leach v. Super. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905, 906.)
Indeed, "[o]nce [a party] 'fail[ed] to serve a timely response,' the trial
court had authority to grant [opposing party's] motion to compel
responses." (Sinaiko Healthcare Counseling, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare
Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405.)
B.
Discussion
1. Form Interrogatories Propounded
The following form interrogatories have been
propounded upon Plaintiff: 1.1, 2.1, 2.11, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 9.1,
9.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2, and
17.1.
(Motion to Compel Responses to FROGs and RPDs, Ex. A.)
2. Requests for Production Propounded
Request No. 1:
Produce any and all documents identified in
your responses to form interrogatories, set one, served contemporaneously with
these document requests. (This refers to the form interrogatories served by Carmen
I. Lujan as a defendant in this case. Not to those served by Lujan as a
cross-complainant.)
Request No. 2:
Any document evidencing or supporting any
claim for damages made by you against Defendant Lujan in this action.
Request No. 3:
Any documents evidencing or supporting your
claim that Defendant Lujan trespassed upon your property.
Request No. 4:
Any documents evidencing or supporting your
claim that Defendant Lujan continues to trespass upon your property.
(Motion to Compel Responses to FROGs and RPDs, Ex. B.)
3. Analysis
On September 15, 2022,
Defendant/Cross-Complainant propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One and
Requests for Production of Documents, Set One on Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant.
(Motion to Compel Responses to FROGs and RPDs, p. 3:14–15, Ex. A, Proof of
Service; and Ex. B, Proof of Service.) With a two-week extension
Defendant/Cross-Complainant granted Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, responses were
due on November 3, 2022. According to Defendant/Cross-Complainant, “[n]o
response have been received.” (Id. at p. 3:24.)
The Court finds that
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant has failed to timely respond to the Form
Interrogatories and the Requests for Production of Documents. The Court does
not have any evidence before it that Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant has since
responded.
The Court GRANTS
Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Motion to Compel Responses to FROGs and RPDs.
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant shall have 30 days from the issuance of this Order to
serve his responses to the Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of
Documents listed above.
4.
Sanctions
Defendant/Cross-Complainant requests
sanctions against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant.
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant has failed to serve
a timely response to the Form Interrogatories and the Requests for Production
of Documents. The Court does not have evidence before it that would indicate
there is substantial justification or other circumstances that would make the
imposition of a sanction unjust. Thus, the Court must impose a monetary
sanction on Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd.
(c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)
Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Counsel
declares that they spent one hour preparing the Motion to Compel Responses to
FROGs and RPDs, that they anticipate spending another 1.5 hours preparing any
reply, and that they anticipate spending another 1.5 hours attending the
hearing, all at a rate of $375.00 per hour. (Motion to Compel Responses to
FROGs and RPDs, Decl. Strohmeyer, ¶ 4.)
The Court AWARDS sanctions for
Defendant/Cross-Complainant and against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant in the amount
of $400.00.
III.
Conclusion
Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Motion to Deem
as Admitted RFAs is DENIED as moot.
Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Motion to Compel Responses to FROGs and RPDs
is GRANTED. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant shall have 20 days from the issuance of
this Order to serve his responses.
Sanctions are AWARDED for
Defendant/Cross-Complainant and against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant in the amount
of $800.00.