Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 24STCV08048, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV08048    Hearing Date: February 25, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC   

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant Guadalupe Diaz

Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted and for Sanctions

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.

Because plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC has filed substantive reply papers, the court exercises its discretion to consider the opposition papers served by defendant Guadalupe Diaz at the incorrect address for counsel for plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC.[1]  (Jan. 24, 2025 Notice of Change of Address for plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC; Opp., PDF p. 65 [proof of service of opposition papers on plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC at former address].)  

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order (1) deeming admitted the truth of the matters set forth in each Request for Admission served on defendant Guadalupe Diaz (“Defendant”), and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $3,992.15.

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, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response that is in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (b), (c).)¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

Plaintiff served Defendant with its Requests for Admission, Set One, by mail on April 18, 2024.[2]  (Medvei Decl., Ex. 1, p. 14 [proof of service of Requests for Admission on Defendant].)  Defendant had not served responses as of the date that Plaintiff filed this motion on January 24, 2025.  (Medvei Decl., ¶ 5.) 

Defendant has filed an opposition to this motion, arguing that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith before filing this motion, the parties have engaged in settlement negotiations, and the parties agreed to extend the time by which Defendant was required to respond to discovery.  But (1) section 2033.280 does not require that the parties meet and confer before filing a motion pursuant to that statute, and (2) engaging in settlement negotiations does not obviate Defendant’s discovery obligations.  The court acknowledges that Defendant has shown that Plaintiff granted Defendant a two-week extension to respond to the subject discovery, through June 6, 2024.  (Loa Decl., Ex. A, PDF p. 29 [May 16, 2024 email from counsel for Plaintiff stating “I can agree to an initial two week extension for your client’s discovery responses”].)  However, Defendant does not dispute that she did not serve responses as of that date and had not served responses as of the date that Plaintiff filed this motion, on January 24, 2025—i.e., after the date that Defendant’s responses were due based on the two-week extension.  (Medvei Decl., ¶ 5.)  Defendant also did not submit evidence showing that she served, before the hearing on this motion, “a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  Moreover, Plaintiff has stated, in its reply papers, that Defendant had not served responses as of the date that the reply papers were filed.  (Medvei Reply Decl., ¶ 5.)

            For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that (1) Plaintiff has shown that Defendant did not serve timely responses to its Requests for Admission, and (2) Defendant has not shown that she has since served responses.  The court therefore grants Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted the Requests for Admission.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (b), (c).)

            The court grants Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  The court finds that $1,328.80 ((2.5 hours x $500 hourly rate) + $60 filing fee + $1.65 credit card fee + $17.15 e-filing fee) is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose against Defendant in connection with this motion.  (Medvei Decl., ¶ 6.)

The court denies Defendant’s request that the court consolidate the hearing on this motion with the hearings on Plaintiff’s other motions to compel her discovery responses.

ORDER

            The court grants plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC’s motion to deem admissions admitted and request for sanctions as follows.

            Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, the court orders that the truth of the matters specified in the Requests for Admission, Set One, served on defendant Guadalupe Diaz on April 18, 2024 by plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC, is deemed admitted.

            The court orders defendant Guadalupe Diaz to pay monetary sanctions to plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC in the amount of $1,328.80 within 30 days of the date of service of this order.

            The court orders plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  February 25, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court