Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 21STCV07919, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 21STCV07919, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07919 Hearing Date: August 21, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: August 21, 2023¿

CASE NUMBER: 21STCV07919

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

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Teddyland, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: Cross-Defendants, Tung Ming and Kwan Cheung (No Oppositions)

TRIAL DATE: Not Set

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

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

(3) Request for Sanctions

Tentative Rulings: (1) Motion for an Order that Requests be Deemed Admitted Against Defendant Kwan Cheung is GRANTED

(2) Motion for an Order that Requests be Deemed Admitted Against Defendant Tung Ming is GRANTED.

(3) Request for Sanctions is 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.

On April 14, 2021, Teddyland, LLC filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants, Tung Ming, Kwan Cheung, and DOES 1 through 30. The Cross-Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Implied Indemnity; (2) Contribution; and (3) Equitable Indemnity.

Per the motions, on May 18, 2023, Teddyland served Ming and Cheung with Requests for Admission of Facts. However, Teddyland notes that neither cross-defendant responded. Teddyland now files this Motion for an Order that Admitted Against Cross-Defendants, Kwan Cheung and Cross-Defendant, Tung Ming.

B. Procedural

On July 21, 2023, Teddyland filed these Motions for an Order that Requests be Admitted Against Defendants. To date, no opposition has been filed.

¿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, Teddyland alleges that this Court should deem the truth of the matters specified since Defendants have failed to respond. Teddyland notes that Defendants were both served with Requests for Admission on May 18, 2023, and that they both have failed to respond. As such, Plaintiff has requested this Court to make an order deeming the matters specified in the requests to be deemed admitted. The Court GRANTS Teddyland’s motions.

C. Sanctions

Plaintiff has also requested that sanctions be granted in the amount of $1,050 per Defendant, totaling $2,100. The Court denies the monetary sanctions given the granting of the motions to deem admissions is draconian enough a remedy for Defendants.

IV. CONCLUSION

¿¿

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motions to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted is GRANTED. The Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

¿¿

Moving party is ordered to give notice.