Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV01364, Date: 2024-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV01364, Date: 2024-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV01364 Hearing Date: May 28, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿

¿¿¿

HEARING DATE: May 28, 2024¿

¿¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV01364

¿¿¿

CASE NAME: Vijay Naidu; Sonia Bhaskar v. Access Services, et al.

¿¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Access Services and Global Paratransit, Inc.

¿¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Sonia Bhaskar

¿¿¿

TRIAL DATE: August 4, 2025

¿¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted

(2) Request for Sanctions

Tentative Rulings: (1) The substantive motion to deem the RFAs to be admitted is mooted by the service of Code-compliant admissions and denials, but the objections to the RFAs are waived

(2) The Court awards $1,500 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel, payable to defense counsel on or before June 21, 2024.

NB: The Court encourages counsel to meet and confer before the hearing on the upcoming discovery motions, based on the Court’s discussion of its reasoning on this motion, to see if an amicable resolution can be agreed upon without the need for those hearings

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿

¿¿¿

A. Factual¿¿¿

¿¿¿

On April 28, 2023, Plaintiffs, Vijay Naidu and Sonia Bhaskar (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, Access Services, Global Paratransit, Inc. (“Defendants”), and DOES 1 through 25. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) General Negligence; and (2) Motor Vehicle Negligence.

Per the moving papers, on January 23, 2024, Defendants propounded Requests for Admission, Set One upon Plaintiff. Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s responses were due on February 26, 2024. Defense counsel states that approximately a week after the due date, on March 4, 2024, counsel sent a letter to plaintiff requesting verified responses without objections as the admissions or denials were overdue. Hearing no response within the 10-day period indicated in the March 4 letter, defense counsel called Plaintiff’s counsel about the status of discovery responses. On March 22, 2024, Defendant sent a meet and confer correspondence requesting responses by Plaintiff by April 22, 2024, if Plaintiff agreed to extend the time defendants could bring a motion to compel.

Defendants assert that at the March 27, 2024 Case Management Conference, Defense counsel informed the Court and the appearing Plaintiff attorney that responses by Plaintiff were overdue. Moreover, Defendants contend that at the April 8, 2024 continued Case Management Conference, Defense counsel informed the Court and the attorney of record for Plaintiff that responses by Plaintiff were overdue.

As such, on April 29, 2024, Defendants filed this motion, as well as serving it on Ms. Eslamboly and other members of her firm Motions to Compel Responses and have its Requests for Admission deemed as admitted by Plaintiff, Sonia Bhaskar. Per the Opposition, Plaintiff Bhaskar served her belated responses, including responses to the 7 subject RFAs, on May 15, 2024, and attaches as Exhibit D to the Opposition those responses together with an undated verification.

B. Procedural¿¿¿

¿¿

On April 29, 2024, Defendants filed this Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted. On May 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief. On May 20, 2024, Defendants filed a reply brief.

¿II. ANALYSIS¿¿

¿¿

A. Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted

Legal Standard

Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (a), provides that “[o]n receipt of a particular response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete[;] (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.” Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days of service of the verified response, otherwise the propounding party waives the right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c).) The motions must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b).)

Discussion

Here, the parties do not dispute that the responses were untimely served. However, in Plaintiffs’ opposition brief, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants are equitably estopped from asserting timeliness issues as they failed to serve Plaintiffs’ attorneys of record when having done so for their answer to the Complaint. Plaintiffs cite to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(b)(3)-(4), which discuss service as it applies to mandatory electronic service. “Before first serving a represented person electronically, the person effecting service shall confirm the appropriate electronic service address for the counsel being served.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6(b)(3).) Further, “[a] person represented by counsel shall, upon the request of any person who has appeared in an action or proceeding and who provides an electronic service address, electronically serve the requesting person with any notice or document that may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or facsmile transmission.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6(b)(4).)

Plaintiffs assert that Defendants answered the Complaint and served Geoffrey Kasler, Esq. and Armin Abazari, DPM, Esq., without serving Sharona Eslmaboly, Esq. said pleading. However, Plaintiffs note that upon serving discovery requests, Defendant left out Geoffrey Kasler, Esq., and Armin Abazari DPM, Esq., but served the discovery requests including the subject RFAs only to Sharona Eslmaboly, Esq.. The Complaint in this case identifies counsel of record as Sharona Eslamboly Hakim on the title page and on the signature block on page 3, and the caption gives an email address of sanaz@sehlawfirm.com. Plaintiffs’ 11/22/23 and 3/18/24 CMC statements again list Ms. Hakim on the title page, but the email address on both those documents is sharona@sehlawfirm.com. And in both CMC statements the notice of intent to appear by telephone lists Geoffrey Kasler although Ms. Hakim’s name again appears on the documents’ signature blocks.

Page 3 of the Opposition at lines 11-12 contends that on or after March 4, 2024, “Sharon Eslamboly, Esq. specifically informed the Defendant to email the associates.” This contention is supported by Exhibit C to the Opposition, a March 4, 2024 email from Ms. Hakim to defense counsel that states “Please include all of my associates on all correspondence.” The Opposition also asserts that Defendants knew of this fact because Defendants sent a meet and confer letter only after they filed the respective motion. However, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants were required to confirm the appropriate electronic service address prior to serving the discovery requests onto a newly designated attorney which they had not previously served. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6(b)(3).)

In their reply brief, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs never provided a service list to Defendants until March 4, 2024, after Defendants sent what they characterize as their ten-day demand letter after about a week after the discovery responses were due. Further, Defendants note that the Court docket service list only includes Sharona Eslamboly Hakim as counsel for Plaintiffs. Moreover, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A attempts to show that Defendant, Global Paratransit, Inc. served its answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint on December 27, 2023, but failed to include Ms. Eslamboly. However, Defendants assert in their reply papers that one minute prior to the Exhibit A email, Defendants had originally attempted to email the Answer to Ms. Eslamboly, but she was out of office, and had an automatic email reply, listing four other email address to forward emails to while she was out of office. The forwarded email to those four other emails came after the original attempted service of the Answer was on Ms. Eslamboly.

The Court also is intrigued as to why Plaintiffs did not bring up this asserted intentional service error in any of the case management conferences where Defendants have raised this issue, nor have they updated their service list, nor filed a Notice of Change in Handling Attorney. There also is no indication in the Opposition papers as to how or why Ms. Hakim’s firm did not have a human-operated or automatic protocol for forwarding incoming emails directed to Ms. Hakim to other assigned lawyers or paralegals in the firm for handling. On the Court’s docket, Sharona Eslamboly Hakim is still the listed counsel for Plaintiffs. One could infer that Ms. Hakim identified a problem with the service list on or before the date of her March 4, 2024 email, but that was after the deadline to respond to the RFAs had passed but almost two months before this motion was filed. Multiple pre-motion communications from defense counsel to counsel of record identified the failure to timely respond to the discovery requests. As such, the Court does not find the fault-shifting argument to be persuasive. The motion to deem the RFAs

admitted could have been avoided and is not, on the record before this Court, the fault of defense counsel. The Court thus denies plaintiffs’ ambitious request for sanctions asserted in the opposition papers.

Here, Defendants served counsel of record Sharona Eslamboly with their propounded discovery, and the responses were untimely. As a result, the objections included in the RFA responses were waived. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(a).) However, because substantially Code-compliant admissions and denial were served prior to the hearing of this motion, the substantive motion to deem the RFAs admitted is mooted. (Id. subdiv. (c).)

B. Sanctions

Additionally, Defendants have requested monetary sanctions be imposed on Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $1,750. Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to deem RFAs admitted if, as here, the Court finds that the responding party has submitted a response to the RFAs that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).) The Court thus awards $1,500 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel, payable to defense counsel on or before June 21, 2024.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.