Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 22CHCP00375, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCP00375    Hearing Date: March 22, 2023    Dept: F51

Dept. F-51

Date: 3/22/23

Case #22CHCP00375 

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED

(Requests for Admission, Set One)

Motion Filed: 2/1/23 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Assistance League of Los Angeles (“Defendant”)¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Aric Cho, in pro per (“Plaintiff”)¿¿ 

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order deeming each of Defendant’s Requests for Admission (RFAs), Set One, propounded on Plaintiff, be admitted. Defendant further requests that the Court order monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,701.50. 

¿¿ 

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. The Court deems each of Defendant’s RFAs, Set One as admitted. The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $500.00. 

The parties are reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil (particularly bookmarking declarations and exhibits). (CRC 3.1110(f)(4).) Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers being rejected, matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.

BACKGROUND¿¿ 

Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant, a referral agency that connected Plaintiff with a partner agency to fulfill his mandatory court-ordered community service hours, alleging that Defendant caused Plaintiff to lose employment opportunities. On 10/27/22, Plaintiff filed a Civil Petition against Defendant.

On 12/13/22, Defendant served Plaintiff with its RFAs, Set One. No responses have been served by Plaintiff to date. On 2/1/23, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s RFAs, Set One. On 2/6/23, Plaintiff filed his opposition. No reply has been filed to date. 

ANALYSIS¿ 

Legal Standard¿ 

A responding party must respond to each propounded request for admission with either a substantive answer or an objection to the particular request. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.210.) 

A propounding party may move for an order deeming the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2033.280, subd. (b); 2033.250, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (a).)¿ 

Here, as Defendant served its RFAs on Plaintiff by mail and email on 12/13/22, the last day for Plaintiff to respond was 1/17/23, accounting for Court holidays. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.260, subd. (a).) To date, Plaintiff has failed to serve any responses. (Decl. of Joshua Shayne, ¶ 4.)

On 1/18/23, Plaintiff indicated to Defendant, via email, that he would not respond to the discovery requests. (Ex. B to Shayne Decl.) Therefore, as Plaintiff has failed to timely serve any responses to Defendant’s RFAs, Plaintiff has consequently waived any objections thereto. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff argues in opposition that he submitted responses to the RFAs on 1/26/23, and an amended response on 2/6/23. (Pl.’s Opp., 1:21–24.) However, this contention is not supported by a declaration under penalty of perjury nor a proof of service to corroborate Plaintiff’s claims. To the extent that Plaintiff alleges that the court filings he submitted on those dates constitute his discovery responses, they are improperly made. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.270, subd. (a) “The requests for admission and the response to them shall not be filed with the court.”)

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to deem its RFAs, Set One to Plaintiff as admitted.  

¿ 

Sanctions¿ 

“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. 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Additionally, “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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).)¿ 

Here, Defendant requests monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1,701.50 to be imposed on Plaintiff. This amount includes: (1) 3 hours of Defendant’s attorney’s time spent working on this motion; (2) an anticipated 1 hour reading Plaintiff’s opposition; (3) an anticipated 3 hours drafting a reply; and (4) an anticipated 1 hour preparing for oral argument at this hearing, at his hourly billing rate of $205.00 per hour. (Shayne Decl., ¶ 6.)¿The total amount requested also includes and a filing fee of $61.50. (Def.’s Mot., 8:22.)

In granting the instant motion, and noting that Defendant has not filed a reply, the Court finds it reasonable to award Defendant sanctions against Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, in the amount of $500.00. 

¿ 

CONCLUSION¿ 

The motion is granted. The Court deems each of Defendant’s RFAs, Set One as admitted. The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $500.00.