Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV21863, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 21STCV21863    Hearing Date: March 15, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:             Plaintiffs Rosa Robalino and Gustavo Robalino

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant FCA US LLC

Motion to Deem the Truth of all Matters in Requests for Admissions Admitted

The court considered the moving and opposition papers filed in connection with this motion.  No reply papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs Rosa Robalino and Gustavo Robalino (“Plaintiffs”) move the court for an order (1) deeming admitted all matters specified in Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission, Set One, directed to defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”), and (2) awarding sanctions against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $1,681.65.

If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the court shall, upon motion by the propounding party, order that the matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted unless the court finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served substantially compliant responses before the hearing on the motion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (b), (c).)¿ 

Defendant has submitted evidence showing that it served verified responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Admissions, Set One, on Plaintiffs on December 6, 2021.  (Hanson Decl., Exs. 1-2.)  The court therefore denies Plaintiffs’ motion for an order deeming admitted the truth of the matters specified in Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions, Set One.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

As to Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions, the court notes that, in support of their motion, Plaintiffs have filed a copy of Plaintiffs’ Request for Admissions to defendant (Set One) which has a proof of service attached that states Plaintiffs’ counsel served the Request for Admissions on Defendant by mail on August 10, 2021.     

            In opposition to the motion, Defendant’s counsel states in her declaration that (1) Defendant did not receive a hard copy of the Requests for Admission by mail, (2) although Plaintiffs’ counsel sent the Request for Admissions as an attachment to an email to Defendant’s counsel, the parties’ counsel did not have an e-service agreement and Plaintiffs’ counsel did not confirm the appropriate electronic service address for Defendant’s counsel, and (3) Defendant served responses to the Request for Admissions on December 6, 2021.  (Hanson Decl., ¶¶ 4-9.)  For the reasons set forth in Defendant’s opposition, the court denies Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions against Defendant.

ORDER

The court denies plaintiffs Rosa Robalino and Gustavo Robalino’s motion to deem the truth of all matters specified in requests for admissions admitted. 

The court denies plaintiffs Rosa Robalino and Gustavo Robalino’s request for sanctions.

The court orders defendant FCA US LLC to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 15, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court