Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 20STCV49362, Date: 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV49362    Hearing Date: April 11, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

            The operative pleading is the first amended complaint (“FAC”) filed by Plaintiff Franco Tapia (“Plaintiff”) on January 4, 2021.  Plaintiff alleges causes of action against Defendants Anthony Chavis, Michael Fuchs, and Robin Osten (collectively “Defendants”) for motor vehicle and general negligence arising out of a motor vehicle accident on July 10, 2020.   

            On March 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the truth of all specified matters in his Requests for Admission, Set One, be deemed admitted and requesting that Defendant Fuchs and his attorneys pay attorney’s fees, costs, and sanctions in the amount of $2,061.65 within such time as may be determined by the Court, pursuant to CCP § 2023.030.

            Plaintiff propounded Requests for Admission, Set One, on Defendant Fuchs on June 30, 2022.  (Motion, Lynn Decl. ¶ 2.)  Plaintiff did not grant an extension of time to respond to the discovery.  (Motion, Lynn Decl. ¶ 3.)  As of September 26, 2022, Defendant Fuchs has failed to respond and failed to request or obtain an extension.  (Ibid.)  On September 7, 2022, Plaintiff served a meet and confer letter but has not received any response.  (Motion, Lynn Decl. ¶ 4; Ex. “B.”)  Plaintiff therefore seeks an order deeming the Request for Admission, Set One, admitted against Defendant Fuchs and imposing sanctions.

            On March 28, 2023, Defendant Fuchs filed an opposition asserting that Plaintiff’s motion was served without proper notice.  Specifically, pursuant to CCP § 1005, Plaintiff was required to provided at least 16 court days of notice and an additional two days for electronic service but failed to do so.  Since Plaintiff’s motion was served via email on March 20, 2023, Plaintiff’s motion could be heard at the very earliest on April 14, 2023.  Also, Defendant Fuchs asserts sanctions are inappropriate because Plaintiff sent one meet and confer correspondence, and because Defendant Fuchs intends to provide code compliant responses by April 7, 2023. Therefore, the motion and request for sanctions should be denied or continued to provide proper notice to Defendant Fuchs.

            On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a consolidated reply asserting the following.  First, Plaintiff does not dispute that Plaintiff’s motion is without proper notice, but in accordance with Defendant Fuchs’ suggestions, Plaintiff requests the Court continue the motion to allow Defendants to promptly serve code-compliant discovery responses.  Further, Plaintiff was not required to meet and confer when Defendant Fuchs failed to file discovery.

            Here, Defendant Fuchs failed to provide code compliant responses by the deadline, however because Plaintiff did not provide proper notice pursuant to CCP § 1005 and because Defendant Fuchs intends to provide code compliant substantive responses to discovery by April 7, 2023, Plaintiff’s motion is continued to ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­__________________. 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

·         Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

·         If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

·         Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

·         If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

Dated this 11^th day of April 2023