Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 24STCV12163, Date: 2025-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV12163    Hearing Date: March 21, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Refael Zilber

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted

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

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Refael Zilber (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order (1) deeming admitted the truth of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, served on defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”), and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $3,118.27.

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).)¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

The court finds that Plaintiff has not shown that they served Defendant with the Requests for Admission at Defendant’s counsel’s address of record and therefore denies Plaintiff’s motion.

The proof of service of the Requests for Admission states that Defendant was served with that discovery by mail at the address 555 South Flower Street, 24th Floor, Los Angeles, California, 90071.  (Davoodi Decl., Ex. A, p. 8:7-16 [proof of service].)  However, Defendant’s counsel’s address of record, as stated on the first page of Defendant’s answer, is One American Plaza, 600 West Broadway, Suite 500, San Diego, California, 92101.  (Def. July 10, 2024 Answer, p. 1:1-4.)  Defendant did not file a notice of change of address or any other documents with the court stating that counsel’s address of record has changed.[1]  Further, Defendant has not filed opposition papers or other evidence establishing that it received this discovery.

Thus, the court finds that Plaintiff did not serve Defendant with the subject Requests for Admission at the correct address of record for Defendant’s counsel.

ORDER

            The court denies plaintiff Refael Zilber’s motion to deem admissions admitted.

            The court orders plaintiff Refael Zilber to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 21, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court