Judge Michael P. Linfield, Case 22STCV15878 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV15878, Date: 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15878 Hearing Date: March 9, 2023 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted, or in the Alternative, to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission from Defendant Tervion T. Ramsey

Moving Party: Plaintiff CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc.

Resp. Party: None

SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories from Defendant Tervion T. Ramsey

Moving Party: Plaintiff CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc.

Resp. Party: None

SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production from Defendant Tervion T. Ramsey

Moving Party: Plaintiff CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc.

Resp. Party: None

Plaintiff’s RFAs Motion, ROGs Motion, and RPDs Motion are all GRANTED. The RFAs are DEEMED ADMITTED. Given that trial is set for March 27, 2023, Defendant shall have until March 17, 2023 to serve his responses to the FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs listed above.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:

It appears to the Court that the pro per Defendant Tervion. Ramsey is not participating in his defense of this action. Defendant answered the complaint, but did not appear at the Case Management Conference, nor did he submit a Case Management Statement in preparation for the CMC. Defendant has not responded to discovery nor has he opposed any of today’s discovery motions.

Had Plaintiff requested sanctions, the Court might well have imposed discovery sanctions. However, since sanctions were not requested, the Court declines to impose them on its own motion

BACKGROUND:

On May 12, 2022, Plaintiff CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc. filed its Complaint against Defendants Tervion Tyrishun Quashwion Ramsey and Department of Motor Vehicles on causes of action of quiet title and declaratory relief.

On June 14, 2022, Defendant Ramsey filed an Answer.

On February 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed:

(1) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted, or in the Alternative, to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission from Defendant Tervion T. Ramsey (“RFAs Motion”);

(2) Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories from Defendant Tervion T. Ramsey (“ROGs Motion”); and

(3) Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production from Defendant Tervion T. Ramsey (“RPDs Motion”).

On March 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Notice of Non-Receipt of Opposition.

No oppositions or other responses have been filed.

ANALYSIS:

For ease of analysis, the Court considers the RFAs Motion separately from the other motions.

I. RFAs Motion

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).)

B. Analysis

1. The Requests for Admission

Plaintiff propounded the following requests for admission (RFAs) on Defendant Ramsey:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:

Admit that YOU purchased the SUBJECT VEHICLE from CARMAX’s location in Irving, Texas on July 9, 2019.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2:

Admit that YOU financed the purchase of the SUBJECT VEHICLE from CARMAX for the total amount of $37,743.81.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3:

Admit that YOU sold the SUBJECT VEHICLE to GOSSLER on January 25, 2020.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:

Admit that YOU received at least $30,179.94 from GOSSLER in connection with YOUR sale of the SUBJECT VEHICLE to GOSSLER.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:

Admit that YOU paid off the financing for the SUBJECT VEHICLE using the money received by YOU from GOSSLER in connection with YOUR sale of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6:

Admit that GOSSLER listed the SUBJECT VEHICLE for sale at a Manheim Auction.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7:

Admit that GOSSLER sold the SUBJECT VEHICLE to CARMAX.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8:

Admit that CARMAX purchased the SUBJECT VEHICLE from GOSSLER at auction.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9:

Admit that the number on YOUR driver’s license number that was in effect on January 25, 2022, was Y6277777.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10:

Admit that YOU resided at 2293 Haws Ave, Apt 2166, Dallas, TX 75235 on or about February 26, 2020.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11:

Admit that YOU resided at 2293 Hawes Ave, Apt. 2166 Dallas, TX 75253 on or about July 9, 2019.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12:

Admit that YOU rented a PO Box with the address of PO Box 2576, Los Angeles, CA 90078.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13:

Admit that YOU registered a corporation with the name RMG Management Group, Inc., with the California Secretary of State on or about October 15, 2019.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14:

Admit that YOU were identified as a director for RMG Management Group, Inc., on its Statement of Information, filed with the California Secretary of State on November 25, 2019.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15:

Admit that YOU never dropped off the SUBJECT VEHICLE at any CARMAX store located in California after YOU purchased the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16:

Admit that YOU have been convicted of a felony in Texas for forgery of a financial instrument.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17:

Admit that YOU failed to report to the State of Texas that YOU sold the SUBJECT VEHICLE to GOSSLER.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18:

Admit that YOU sold the SUBJECT VEHICLE to a California dealer with the intent of clearing the title of any legal owner for the SUBJECT VEHICLE in Texas.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19:

Admit that YOU sold the SUBJECT VEHICLE to a California dealer with the intent of clearing the title of any lien for the SUBJECT VEHICLE in Texas.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20:

Admit that CARMAX is a bona fide purchaser of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21:

Admit the genuineness of the document titled “CarMax Retail Installment Contract” that is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22:

Admit that YOU signed the document titled “CarMax Retail Installment Contract” that is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23:

Admit the genuineness of the document titled “VEHICLE/VESSEL TRANSFER AND REASSIGNMENT FORM” that is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24:

Admit that YOU signed the document titled “VEHICLE/VESSEL TRANSFER AND REASSIGNMENT FORM” that is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

(RFAs Motion.)

2. Admittance of These Requests

On December 20, 2022, Plaintiff propounded these RFAs on Defendant. (RFAs Motion, Ex. 2, p. 6:5.) According to Plaintiff, Defendant has failed to timely respond to the RFAs. (RFAs Motion, p. 1:15–16.) Defendant has not argued or shown any evidence to the contrary.

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to timely respond to the Requests for Admission. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).) The Court does not have any evidence before it that Defendant has since responded or otherwise acted in substantial compliance with section 2033.220. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) The Court therefore deems as admitted the Requests for Admission. (Id.)

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s RFAs Motion. The Requests for Admission are deemed admitted.

II. ROGs Motion and RPDs Motion

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

Plaintiff propounded the following form interrogatories (FROGs) upon Defendant Ramsey: 1.1, 2.1 through 2.11, 12.1 through 12.7, 13.1 through 13.2, 14.1 through 14.2, 15.1, 17.1, 50.1 through 50.6.

(ROGs Motion, Ex. 3.)

2. Special Interrogatories Propounded

Plaintiff propounded the following special interrogatories (SROGs) upon Defendant Ramsey:

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 1:

Please state all facts that support YOUR contention that CARMAX did not purchase the SUBJECT VEHICLE on March 10, 2020.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 2:

Please IDENTIFY all individuals with knowledge of the facts that support YOUR contention that CARMAX did not purchase the SUBJECT VEHICLE on March 10, 2020.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 3:

Please describe with reasonable particularity all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that CARMAX did not purchase the SUBJECT VEHICLE on March 10, 2020.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 4:

Please state all facts that support YOUR contention that CARMAX did not purchase the SUBJECT VEHICLE from GOSSLER.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 5:

IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge of the facts that support YOUR contention that CARMAX did not purchase the SUBJECT VEHICLE from GOSSLER.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 6:

Please describe with reasonable particularity all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that CARMAX did not purchase the SUBJECT VEHICLE from GOSSLER.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 7:

Please state all facts [that] support YOUR contention that CARMAX did not purchase the SUBJECT VEHICLE at auction.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 8:

IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge of the facts that support YOUR contention that CARMAX did not purchase the SUBJECT VEHICLE at auction.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 9:

Please describe with reasonable particularity all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that CARMAX did not purchase the SUBJECT VEHICLE at auction.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 10:

Please state all facts that support YOUR contention that CARMAX is not the current rightful owner of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 11:

IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge of the facts that support YOUR contention that CARMAX is not the current rightful owner of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 12:

Please describe with reasonable particularity all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that CARMAX is not the current rightful owner of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 13:

Please state all facts that support YOUR contention that CARMAX is not a bona fide purchaser of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 14:

IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge of the facts that support YOUR contention that CARMAX is not a bona fide purchaser of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 15:

Please describe with reasonable particularity all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that CARMAX is not a bona fide purchase[r] of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 16:

Please state all facts that support YOUR contention that YOU did not sell the SUBJECT VEHICLE to GOSSLER.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 17:

IDENITFY all PERSONS with knowledge of the facts that support YOUR contention that YOU did not sell the SUBJECT VEHICLE to GOSSLER.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 18:

Please describe with reasonable particularity all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that YOU did not sell the SUBJECT VEHICLE to GOSSLER.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 19:

Please state all facts that support YOUR contention that YOU are the rightful owner of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 20:

IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge of the facts that support YOUR contention that YOU are the rightful owner of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 21:

Please describe with reasonable particularity all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that YOU are the rightful owner of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 22:

Please state all facts that support YOUR contention in that YOU are still paying on the financing for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 23:

IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge of the facts that support YOUR contention in that YOU are still paying on the financing for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 24:

Please describe with reasonable particularity all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention in that YOU are still paying on the financing for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 25:

Please state the amount remaining on any financing for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 26:

Please state whether YOU have any of the keys for the SUBJECT VEHICLE in YOUR possession.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 27:

Please describe how the SUBJECT VEHICLE ended up in California.

(ROGs Motion, Ex. 2.)

3. Requests for Production of Documents Propounded

Plaintiff propounded the following requests for production of documents (RPDs) upon Defendant Ramsey:

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

All DOCUMENTS regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:

All DOCUMENTS regarding the purchase of the SUBJECT VEHICLE by YOU.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:

All DOCUMENTS, including account statements and payment receipts, regarding the financing of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

All DOCUMENTS that support your contention that YOU currently are the owner of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:

All DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that CARMAX did not purchase the SUBJECT VEHICLE on March 10, 2020.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:

All DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention [that] CARMAX did not purchase the SUBJECT VEHICLE from GOSSLER.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:

All DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that CARMAX does not rightfully own the SUBJECT VEHICLE at the present time.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:

All DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that CAMRAX is not a bona fide purchaser of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:

All DOCUMENTS showing the ownership of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:

All DOCUMENTS showing the identity of any lienholder of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:

All DOCUMENTS showing the identity of any legal owners of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:

All titles issued to YOU for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:

Any registration for the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:

The insurance policy covering the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:

All DOCUMENTS that are, refer to, or regard any communications between YOU and CARMAX regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:

All DOCUMENTS that are, refer to, or regard any communications between YOU and GOSSLER regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:

All DOCUMENTS that are, refer to, or regard any communications between YOU and any PERSON regarding the SUBJECT VEHICLE.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:

All DOCUMENTS referred to in YOUR responses to concurrently propounded interrogatories.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:

All DOCUMENTS that [YOU] content support YOUR asserted defenses in this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:

All DOCUMENTS regarding any PO Boxes opened by YOU located in Los Angeles, California.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:

All DOCUMENTS regarding the incorporation of any company where YOU are listed as an officer.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:

All DOCUMENTS regarding the incorporation of any company where YOU are listed as a director.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:

A copy of YOUR driver’s license that was in effect in January 2020.

(RPDs Motion, Ex. 1.)

4. Analysis

On December 20, 2022, Plaintiff propounded these FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs on Defendant. (ROGs Motion, Ex. 2, p. 6:11; RPDs Motion, Ex. 2, p. 6:4.) According to Plaintiff, Defendant has failed to timely respond to the FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs. (ROGs Motion, p. 1:16–17; RPDs Motion, p. 1:15–16.) Defendant has not argued or shown any evidence to the contrary.

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to timely respond to the FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs. The Court does not have any evidence before it that Defendant has since responded.

The Court GRANTS the ROGs Motion and the RPDs Motion. Defendant shall have 30 days from the issuance of this Order to serve his responses to the FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs listed above.

III. Conclusion