Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 20STCV10464, Date: 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV10464    Hearing Date: October 6, 2022    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

Plaintiff Xiaoxing Zhang’s Motion for an Order Deeming Admitted Truth of Facts and Genuineness of Documents is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Xiaoxing Zhang’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,244.15.

Factual background

This matter arises from an alleged breach of contract. The Complaint alleges as follows. Plaintiff Xiaoxing Zhang (“Plaintiff”) negotiated with Defendant Zhe Zhang (“Zhang”) regarding renovations to the Subject Properties (the “Project”). (Compl. ¶ 11.) Zhang required payments of two “deposits” before any contract was signed and work began. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14.) The contract ultimately presented by the Defendants was for a different scope of work, and a different general contractor, than previously agreed by the parties. (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 15-16.) Zhang and Defendants HLS Highlife Style, LLC (“HLS”) and Envirogreen Windows and Doors, Inc. (“EWD”) failed to complete their contractual obligations despite receiving $24,000 before work commenced, failed to pay the subcontractors who Plaintiff ultimately paid, and refused to return the money paid. (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants Zhang, HLS, and EWD asserting eleven causes of action for:

1.    Breach of Contract

2.    Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

3.    Promissory Fraud

4.    Intentional Misrepresentation

5.    Concealment

6.    Violation of California Business Code § 17200 et seq.

7.    Violation of California Business Code § 7031

8.    Violation of California Business Code § 7100 et seq.

9.    Violation of California Business Code § 7159.5

10. Conversion

11. Declaratory Relief

On May 26, 2020, Zhang and EWD filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff, HLS, Variety Design Center, Inc. (“VDC”), J.D. Huang Investment Inc. (“J.D.”), David Su (“Su”), Jian Huang (“Huang”), and Dazhai Huang (“Dazhai”).

On August 11, 2020, HLS filed a Cross-Complaint against Zhang and EWD asserting two causes of action for:

1.    Indemnity

2.    Breach of Fiduciary Duty

On December 11, 2020, Zhang and EWD (hereinafter “Cross-Complainants”) filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) against, inter alia, HLS, VDC and Su asserting six causes of action for:

1.    Breach of Contract

2.    Comparative Indemnity

3.    Implied Indemnity

4.    Fraud by False Promise

5.    Contribution

6.    Unjust Enrichment

On February 15, 2022, Cross-Complainants filed a Second Amended Complaint, removing the cause of action for Unjust Enrichment.

On August 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for an Order Deeming Admitted Truth of Facts and Genuineness of Documents in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One.

No Opposition has been filed.

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff Xiaoxing Zhang moves for an order deeming admitted the truth of facts and genuineness of documents contained in his Request for Admissions, Set One, as to Defendant Zhe Zhang.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), a “party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).” The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).)

Monetary sanctions are mandatory against a party, attorney, or both whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).)

Here, Plaintiff states that Plaintiff served Defendant with the first set of Requests for Admissions on June 24, 2022. (Tatone Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Responses were due by July 25, 2022. (Ibid.)

After Defendant failed to provide responses to the initial requests for admission, Plaintiff’s Counsel contacted Defendant on August 2, 2022, to inquire as to the missing discovery. (Tatone Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant did not agree to provide responses. (Ibid.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Deeming RFA’s admitted is GRANTED.

Additionally, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions against Defendant pursuant to section 2033.280(c)). Sanctions are mandatory under that section.

Plaintiff requests $1,656.65, based upon 5.8 hours of work at Plaintiff’s Counsel’s hourly rate of $275.00.

While the Court finds Plaintiff’s Counsel’s hourly rate reasonable, the Court notes that Plaintiff included 1.5 hours to read and respond to any Opposition. (Tatone Decl., ¶ 5.) As no Opposition has been filed, the Court deducts 1.5 hours from Plaintiff’s requested hours at the hourly rate of $275.00.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,244.15.

DATED: October 6, 2022 

____________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper