Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV03165, Date: 2025-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV03165    Hearing Date: January 22, 2025    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling 

HEARING DATE:                 January 22, 2025 

CASE NUMBER:                  23TRCV03165

CASE NAME:                        Citibank, N.A. v. Chris Kastingar

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiffs, Citibank, N.A.

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant, Chris Kastingar (No Opposition)

TRIAL DATE:                        Not Set.                

MOTION:                             (1) Motion for an Order that Requests be Deemed Admitted, Set Two, Against Defendant.

(2)   Request for Monetary Sanctions.

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) Motion for an Order that Requests be Deemed Admitted, Set Two, Against Defendant, is GRANTED

(2)   Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED without prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Factual 

On September 26, 2023, Plaintiff, CitiBank, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant, Chris Kastingar (“Defendant”). The complaint alleges one cause of action for Common Counts.

On September 24, 2024, Plaintiff served, by mail, its second set of Requests for Admission on Defendant. (Declaration of Anthony DiPiero (“DiPiero Decl.”), ¶ 2.) However, Plaintiff states that Defendant has not served responses. (DiPiero Decl., ¶ 3.) Thus, Plaintiff has brought this Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set Two as Admitted.

The Court acknowledges that on November 13, 2024, Defendant filed a Substitution of Attorney, noting he would be representing himself.

B. Procedural  

            On November 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Deem the Truth of the Matters Specified in that Requests for Admission, Set Two, Admitted. To date, no opposition has been filed.

            This Motion was originally set for December 6, 2024, but was continued to January 22, 2025.

II. ANALYSIS 

A. Legal Standard

Pursuant to 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 has stated that on September 24, 2024, it served its Requests for Admission, Set Two, on Defendant, Chris Kastigar. However, Plaintiff states that Defendant has not served responses. (DiPiero Decl., ¶ 3.) Because of this, the Court’s tentative ruling is to GRANT Plaintiff’s motion. As such, this Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion and deems the Request 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, Plaintiff also included a Request for Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $600. This amount is based on counsel for Plaintiff, Anthony DiPiero’s hourly rate of $450, spending 0.1 hours formatting the pleading papers and gathering documents, 0.2 hours drafting the substantive legal arguments, 0.5 hours reviewing and editing the motion sections and adding the request for sanction, and 0.4 hours editing the entire motion for a total amount of billed tie of 1.5 hours. Here, the Court acknowledges that it finds the amount of hours and the hourly rate to be reasonable. However, this Court also notes that the granting of this motion is devastating to Defendant’s potential defenses in this case. The Requests for Admission that this Court is tentatively inclined to deem as admitted are nearly tantamount to a motion admitting Defendant’s liability, and thus this Court denies this request for monetary sanctions, without prejudice to be reasserted if and when Defendant seeks relief from the deemed admissions.  

III. CONCLUSION  

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Request for Monetary Sanction is Denied without prejudice.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.