Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case 22GDCV00310 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Under CCP § 2033.280 (a), a party who fails to serve a timely response to requests for admissions “waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product….” In addition, the requesting party may move for an order that “the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction....” CCP § 2033.280(b). The Code specifies that, “The court shall make this order, 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.” CCP § 2033.280(c).

In this case, a set of requests for admissions were served on each defendant on July 18, 2022, by mail. Under CCP section 2033.250 (b), “in an unlawful detainer action… the party to whom the request is directed shall have at least five days from the date of service to respond…” Permitting an additional five days for service of the discovery by mail, responses were due by July 28, 2022. Responses were not served within the permitted period, or by the time these motions were filed on August 9, 2022. [Byrne Decl., para. 2].

Defendants have failed to serve timely responses and have therefore waived all objections. Plaintiff has filed noticed motions requesting orders that the requests be deemed admitted as truth. Unless satisfactory proposed responses are served before the hearing, the court must grant the motion.

“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 § 2023.010 provides that misuses of the discovery process include: “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where there has been such conduct, under CCP section 2023.030(a), “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct....If a monetary sanction is authorized” by the statute, “ the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that the other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP § 2023.030(a).

In this case, defendants have failed to respond to an authorized method of discovery and plaintiff has submitted evidence that plaintiff has incurred expenses as a result of the conduct. Since the motions are unopposed, there is no evidence that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Sanctions must be awarded. Plaintiff requests $574 for each motion, although the declarations submitted support a sanctions award of only $573.75 per motion. The court awards the sanctions supported in the sum of $573.75 for each motion.

Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Deeming Admitted Requests for Admissions Against Defendant Gina S. Park is GRANTED. Defendant has failed to serve timely responses, or a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220 prior to the hearing on this motion. The Court therefore orders that all matters specified in Requests for Admissions, Truth of Fact, Genuineness of Documents, Set No. One are deemed admitted as true and the documents admitted as genuine, pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c).

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $573.75 (2.25 hours @ $255/hour [2.25]) [Amount Requested $574, amount supported $573.75], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiff Glendale I Mall Associates, LP and against defendant Gina S. Park, payable within 30 days. CCP §§ 2033.280(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Deeming Admitted Requests for Admissions Against Defendant Eva Cheong is GRANTED. Defendant has failed to serve timely responses, or a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220 prior to the hearing on this motion. The Court therefore orders that all matters specified in Requests for Admissions, Truth of Fact, Genuineness of Documents, Set No. One are deemed admitted as true and the documents admitted as genuine, pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c).

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $573.75 (2.25 hours @ $255/hour [2.25]) [Amount Requested $574, amount supported $573.75], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiff Glendale I Mall Associates, LP and against defendant Eva Cheong, payable within 30 days. CCP §§ 2033.280(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Deeming Admitted Requests for Admissions Against Defendant Christopher Y. Kim is GRANTED. Defendant has failed to serve timely responses, or a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220 prior to the hearing on this motion. The Court therefore orders that all matters specified in Requests for Admissions, Truth of Fact, Genuineness of Documents, Set No. One are deemed admitted as true and the documents admitted as genuine, pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c).

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $573.75 (2.25 hours @ $255/hour [2.25]) [Amount Requested $574, amount supported $573.75], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiff Glendale I Mall Associates, LP and against defendant Christopher Y. Kim, payable within 30 days. CCP §§ 2033.280(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a).

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams offers free audio and video appearance. Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear. With respect to the wearing of face masks, Department D recognizes that currently, the Los Angeles Department of Public Health strongly recommends masks indoors, especially when interacting with individuals whose vaccination status is unknown; for individuals who have a health condition that puts them at higher risk for severe illness; individuals who live with someone who is at higher risk; and for individuals who are around children who are not yet eligible for vaccines. In accordance with this guidance, it is strongly recommended that anyone personally appearing in Department D wear a face mask. The Department D Judge and court staff will continue to wear face masks. If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.