Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV01128, Date: 2024-12-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV01128    Hearing Date: December 31, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                    December 31, 2024¿ 

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                      22TRCV01128

¿¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                           Maurice Stephenson v. Leo Ramsey, et al.

¿¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                (1) Plaintiff, Maurice Stephenson

¿¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:        (1) Defendant, Leo Ramsey

¿¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                       February 24, 2025

¿¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set Two as Admitted.

                                                (2) Request for Sanctions

Tentative Rulings:                     (1) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set Two as Admitted is GRANTED.

                                                (2) Request for Sanctions is DENIED without prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿¿ 

¿¿

On November 3, 2022, Plaintiff, Maurice Stephenson (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Leo Ramsey, Federal and State Income Tax Services, LLC, and DOES 1 through 50. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Breach of Oral Contract; (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (3) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (4) Intentional Misrepresentation; (5) Intentional Misrepresentation; (6) Unjust Enrichment; (7) Negligence; (8) Declaratory Relief; and (9) Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.

On September 5, 2024, Plaintiff propounded the second set of Requests for Admission on Defendant, Leo Ramsey (“Ramsey”) and his company and Federal State Income Tax LLC. Defendants’ responses were due on October 11, 2024. However, Plaintiff states that Defendants have failed to provide any responses by the deadline and did not request an extension. Plaintiff also informs the Court that Defendants have not communicated at all since Defendants’ counsel withdrew from representing them.

Based on Defendants’ failure to respond, Plaintiff has brought this Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted, as well as requesting Monetary Sanctions be imposed on Defendants for their failure to provide timely responses.

¿ 

B. Procedural¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff brought this Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, Set Two Deemed Admitted. To date, no opposition brief 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

Plaintiff notes that on September 5, 2024, he served its Requests for Admission, Set Two, on Defendants. However, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have failed to respond to his discovery requests and has also failed to ask for any extension of time to respond to said discovery. Because of this, the Court’s tentative ruling is to GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set Two as Admitted.

C.    Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(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 because of that conduct.  Misuse of discovery includes “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.”  (Code Civ. Proc. §¿2023.010(d)). 

Along with Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set Two as admitted. Plaintiff also included a Request for Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $1,225. This amount is based on Plaintiff’s counsel, Graham G. Lambert declaration (“Lambert Decl.”). Lambert declares that his associate, Tia Gonzalez’s hourly rate is $350, and that she spent a minimum of 3.5 hours analyzing the issues raised by the Motion, reviewing the Requests for Admission regarding same, and drafting the Motion and declaration offered in connection with it. This Court notes that the granting of this motion is devastating to Defendants’ potential defenses. The Requests for Admission that this Court is tentatively inclined to deem as admitted are nearly tantamount to a motion admitting Defendants’ breach of contract, and thus this Court denies this request for monetary sanctions, without prejudice to be reasserted if and when Defendants seeks relief from the deemed admissions.   

III. CONCLUSION¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿¿ 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED, and the Requests for Admission are deemed Admitted.  Further, the Request for Sanctions are DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice.