SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

1. Motion to Compel¿ 

Defendant/Cross-Defendant Cleciano Geraldo Neto (“Defendant Neto”) seeks an order compelling responses to discovery. Defendant Neto propounded request for production of documents, set one, on Plaintiff Joe Hood (“Plaintiff”) on April 25, 2023.  (Mot. Decl. Moreno ¶ 3; Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s responses were due on or before May 30, 2023. (Ibid.) On May 30, 2023, Plaintiff did not serve any responses. (Id. at ¶ 4.) On June 9, 2023, defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting responses to outstanding discovery by June 13, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 5; Exh. B.) To date, Plaintiff has not served responses. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.) Defendant Neto therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions. Any opposition was due on or before August 11, 2023. No opposition was filed. 

 

Defendant Neto’s unopposed motion is granted.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to Defendant Neto’s RFP, set one, without objections, within twenty (20) days. (CCP § 2031.300(a),(b).) 

 

2. Motion To Deem Admitted¿ 

Under Code of Civil Procedure 2033.280(b), failure to respond to requests for admission in a timely manner allows the requesting party to “move for an order that…the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted” by the party that failed to respond.  The requesting party’s motion must be granted by the court, “unless [the court] 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(c).)    

The evidence shows that Defendant Neto properly served Request for Admissions (“RFAs”), set one, upon Plaintiff on April 25, 2023, and Plaintiff failed to respond. (Mot. Decl. Moreno ¶¶ 3, 6-7; Exh. A.) Furthermore, there is no evidence that any responses in substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.220 were served before the hearing on the motion.   

Therefore, Defendant Neto’s unopposed motion is granted.  (CCP § 2033.280(b).) Defendant Neto’s RFAs, set one, is deemed admitted against Plaintiff.   

 

3. Sanctions¿ 

Sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless a court makes certain findings.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)¿ Plaintiff did not file any oppositions. However, sanctions may be awarded, even though no opposition is filed pursuant to CRC 3.1348(a). Further, “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.”  (CCP § 2033.280(c).) Defendant Neto seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,740 for each motion.  

Defendant Neto is awarded 1 hour to prepare each motion and one hour to appear at the hearing- but is awarded this time only once- all at the reasonable rate of $140 per hour, for a total of $420 in attorney fees.   

Further, Defendant Neto is awarded two motion filing fees of $60, for a total of $120, as costs.  

  

Defendant Neto seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of record.  Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of record, jointly and severally.  Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant Neto, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $540, within twenty (20) days. 

 

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.   

 

 

Dated this 23rd day of August 2023