Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case 20TRCV00918 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 20TRCV00918, Date: 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20TRCV00918 Hearing Date: February 6, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: February 6, 2023¿

CASE NUMBER: 20TRCV00918

CASE NAME: Juan Ramirez, et al. v. Get Lucky Capital, LLC et al. .

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, WESTSTAR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.

RESPONDING PARTY: None

TRIAL DATE: None set

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Defendant’s Requests for Admission

(2) Request for Monetary Sanctions

(3) Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint

Tentative Rulings: (1) DENIED, in light of very recent service of responses to the RFAs.

(2) GRANTED, monetary sanctions int eh amount of $350 are ordered payable by Plaintiffs and/or their counsel within 30 days

(3) OFF CALENDAR as there is no Second Amended Complaint to Demur to

I. BACKGROUND¿

A. Factual¿

On December 10, 2020, Plaintiffs Juan Ramirez and Alondra Ramirez brought this action against Defendants Get Lucky Capital, LLC (“GLC”); Weststar Property Management, Inc. (“Weststar”) and DOES 1 through 20. On February 3, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Forcible Entry; and (2) Forcible Detainer.

This case is based on the alleged facts: On or about March 18, 2019, Plaintiffs rented the real property commonly known as 13106 South Vermont Avenue, Unit #7, Gardena, CA 90247 (the “Property”) from defendant, GLC, pursuant to a written California Residential Lease Agreement (the “lease”.) (FAC, ¶ 9, Exhibit 1.) Plaintiffs allege that GLC owned the Property at all times material to this complaint. (FAC, ¶ 11.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendant, Westar Management was the property manager for the Property at all times material to this complaint. (FAC, ¶ 12.) Plaintiffs allege that on December 8, 2020, defendants forcibly entered the Property without plaintiffs’ consent and not pursuant to legal process. (FAC, ¶ 13.) Plaintiffs contend that starting December 8, 2020, defendants, who had forcibly entered the Property without plaintiffs’ consent and not pursuant to legal process, turned plaintiffs out of possession of the Property. (FAC, ¶ 23.)

Plaintiffs allege that “by such forcible detainer, plaintiffs have been deprived of possession of the Property and its contents.” (FAC, ¶ 24.) Plaintiffs further allege that “Defendants further stole, destroyed and disposed of plaintiffs’ personal property that was in the Property at the time that defendants forcibly entered the Property.” (FAC, ¶ 24.) Plaintiffs further contend that “Defendants have remained and continue to remain, without plaintiffs’ consent, in possession of the Property and its contents up to and including the date of this complaint and are threatening to remain permanently in possession of the Property and its contents.” (FAC, ¶ 25.)

On July 6, 2021, Defendant Weststar asserts that it propounded Request for Admission, Set One, to Plaintiff. On August 11, 2021, counsel for Defendant notes it granted an extension to counsel for Plaintiff. Defendant contends it tried, on several occasions to meet and confer with Plaintiff. Weststar argues that as of the date of its motion, no response had been given to Defendant’s meet and confer emails ad letters, and no discovery responses have been proffered by Plaintiff.

B. Procedural

On September 7, 2022, Defendant, Weststar filed this Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Defendant’s Requests for Admission. Plaintiff’s tardy opposition was filed on February 2, 2023, attaching verified responses without objection to the RFAs.

¿II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(c), the court shall make the order deeming the truth of the matters admitted unless the responding party serves before the hearing a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Code Civ. Proc § 2033.220. Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.220 requires that each answer either admits, denies or specifies that the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge. As stated in Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates, the moving party is not required to meet and confer before bringing this action. (Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates, 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395.)¿¿

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)¿¿

B. Discussion

Here, it does not appear that Plaintiff served any response to Defendant’s Requests for Admission as of the date the motion was filed. However, on February 2, 2023, the Thursday before the Monday hearing on the motion, Plaintiff filed a short opposition attaching copies of admission and denials to each RFA, without objections. A such, Defendant’s motion is mooted, other than the include request for monetary sanctions.

C. Monetary Sanctions

Defendant has requested monetary sanction against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, in the amount of $915 for reasonable expenses incurred in preparing, filing, and attending the hearing on this motion. Even though the substantive motion is mooted, earlier responses should have been provided and the motion should not have been required. But the responses were not given until two court days before the hearing.

IV. CONCLUSION

¿¿

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted is mooted. Further, monetary sanctions are granted in the amount of $350, payable within 30 days by Defendants and/or their counsel.

¿¿

Moving party is ordered to give notice.