Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case 21STCV07919 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 21STCV07919, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07919 Hearing Date: April 20, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: April 20, 2023¿

CASE NUMBER: 21STCV07919

CASE NAME: Jesse Franklin Esphorst v. Tung Ming, et al. .

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Jesse Franklin Esphorst

RESPONDING PARTY: None

TRIAL DATE: August 1, 2023

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion for an Order that Requests be Deemed Admitted Against Defendant Kwan Cheung and for monetary sanctions

(2) Motion for an Order that Requests be Deemed Admitted Against Defendant Tung Ming and for monetary sanctions

Tentative Rulings: (1) Motion for an Order that Requests be Deemed Admitted Against Defendant Kwan Cheung is GRANTED, but the monetary sanctions are DENIED

(2) Motion for an Order that Requests be Deemed Admitted Against Defendant Tung Ming is GRANTED, but the monetary sanctions are DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND¿

A. Factual¿

On March 1, 2021, Plaintiffs, Jesse Franklin Esphorst, an individual, and as successor-in-interest to The Estate of Jesse Eric Esphorst, deceased (Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants, Tung Ming, Kwan Cheung, Teddyland, LLC, and DOES 1 through 50.

Plaintiff notes that on February 7, 2023, Plaintiff served his Requests for Admissions, Set One, on Kwan Cheung and Requests for Admissions, Set Five on Tung Ming. Plaintiff notes that the discovery request was electronically served on Kwan Cheung’s and Tung Ming’s then counsel of record, Mr. Robert Atagen, prior to his withdrawal, at his electronic service address (Robert Altagen (robertaltagen@altagenlaw.com), Jackie Torres (jtorres@altagenlaw.com), and Chailing Fung (chailingfung@altagenlaw.com). (Ex. 4, Requests for Admissions; Feit Declaration at ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff further notes that the discovery request was also mailed to Defendant, Kwan Cheung, on February 07, 2023, at her last known addresses, of 635 W. Foothill Blvd, Monrovia, CA 91016, and 1026 Walnut Grove Ave, Rosemead, CA 91770. (Ex. 4, Requests for Admissions; Feit Declaration at ¶ 4.) On March 3, 2023, Plaintiff notes that Mr. Robert Altagen requested an extension to respond to the discovery, which was granted. (Ex. 5, Email; Feit Declaration at ¶ 5.) However, Plaintiff notes that as of the time of filing this motion, no response to the discovery has been received. (Feit Declaration at ¶ 6.)

Additionally, Plaintiff contends the discovery request was also mailed to Defendant Tung Ming, on February 07, 2023, at his last known addresses, of 11950 Idaho Ave #450, Santa Monica, CA 90025, 635 W. Foothill Blvd., Monrovia, CA 91016, and 1026 Walnut Grove Ave, Rosemead, CA 91016. (Ex. 3, Requests for Admissions; Feit Declaration at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff also noted that on March 3, 2023, Mr. Robert Altagen requested an extension to respond to the discovery, which was granted. (Ex. 4, Email; Feit Declaration at ¶ 5.) However, again, Plaintiff notes that as of the time the current motion was filed, no response to the discovery has been received. (Feit Declaration at ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff now files these Motions for an Order that Admitted Against Defendants Kwan Cheung and Tung Ming, and for monetary sanctions of approximately $1,000 per motion.

B. Procedural

On March 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed these Motions for an Order that Requests be Admitted Against Defendants. As of the morning of the hearing on these two motions, no opposition or other response has been received. On April 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “reply” to each non-existent opposition, essentially conforming that Plaintiff has received no response tot eh RFAs and no response to the two motions to deem the RFAs admitted.

¿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.)¿¿

B. Discussion

Here, Plaintiff alleges that this Court should deem the truth of the matters specified. Plaintiff notes that Defendants were both served with Requests for Admission on February 7, 2023. However, Plaintiff also notes that neither Defendants have responded, under oath, to the discovery requests. As such, Plaintiff has requested that this Court make an Order deeming the matters specified in the requests to be deemed admitted.

C. Sanctions

Plaintiff has also requested that sanctions be granted in the amount of $1,060 per Defendant, totaling $2,120. The Court denies the monetary sanctions given that the granting of the motions for deemed admissions is draconian enough a remedy for defendants’ abdication of tehri responsibility for participating in discovery in this matter.

¿¿

Moving party is ordered to give notice.