SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

Plaintiff Lettrice Lawrence (“Plaintiff”) propounded request for admissions (“RFAs”), set one, on Defendant David Catton (“Catton”) on April 24, 2023. After having received no responses, Plaintiff’s counsel inquired as to the status on July 5, 2023, wherein the parties agreed to an extension up and until August 5, 2023. After, counsel for Defendant Catton emailed Plaintiff’s counsel, averring that they had lost contact with Defendant Catton because he is homeless. No responses have been served. Plaintiff therefore seek an order deeming the RFAs admitted and imposing sanctions.  

Defendant Catton opposes the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply. 

 

II. Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted 

Where there has been no timely response to a request for admission under CCP § 2033.010, the propounding party may 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 a monetary sanction.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the requests, unless the court grants that party relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).)  The court “shall” grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “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 of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) 

In opposition, defense counsel concedes that they have lost contact with Defendant Catton and that no responses were served. However, defense counsel contends that Plaintiff’s requests for admissions are improper because certain requests ask Defendant Catton to admit to facts or issues not within his personal knowledge. However, these are objections to the requests, which Defendant Catton has already waived by failing to respond. There has been no motion to relieve Defendant Catton from this waiver.  

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s RFAs, set one, is deemed admitted against Defendant Catton. (CCP §2033.280(b).)    

 

II. Sanctions 

Where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t 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).) Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,260 for the instant motion. 

Plaintiff is awarded 1 hour to prepare the motion, 1 hour to prepare the reply, and one hour to appear at the hearing, all at the requested rate of $300 per hour, for a total of $900 in attorney fees. Further, Plaintiff is awarded one motion filing fee of $60, as costs.     

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant Catton and his attorney of record. However, given that Plaintiff is clearly informed that counsel for Defendant Catton does not have the ability to locate or contact Defendant Catton, Plaintiff is put on notice that the Court will not impose any sanctions against Defendant Catton’s counsel absent direct evidence that defense counsel in fact has the ability to contact Defendant Catton.    

Sanctions are imposed against Defendant Catton only. Defendant Catton is ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $960, within twenty (20) days.