Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV01700, Date: 2024-12-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24TRCV01700 Hearing Date: December 31, 2024 Dept: 8
Tentative Ruling
HEARING DATE: December 31, 2024
CASE NUMBER: 24TRCV01700
CASE NAME: Jocelyn Espinoza dba Skewer Mediterranean Grill; Julia Alegria v. South Bay Center SPE, LLC
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, in pro per, Jocelyn Espinoza and Julia Alegria
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, South Bay Center SPE, LLC
TRIAL DATE: Not Set.
MOTION: (1) Plaintiff, Jocelyn Espinoza’s Motion for an Order that Requests be Deemed Admitted, Against Defendant.
(2) Plaintiff, Julia Alegria’s Motion for an Order that Requests be Deemed Admitted, Against Defendant.
(3) Request for Monetary Sanctions.
Tentative Rulings: (1) , (2) DENIED, without prejudice to a motion to compel further responses to the subject RFAs
(2) DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual
On May 21, 2024, Plaintiffs, Jocelyn Espinoza dba Skewer Mediterranean Grill and Julia Alegria (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed, in pro per, a complaint against Defendant, South Bay Center SPE, LCC. The complaint alleged causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Violation of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; (4) Negligence; (5) Tortious Interference with Business Relations; (6) Retaliation; (7) Constructive Eviction; and (8) Deceptive Trade Practices.
On October 11, 2024, Plaintiffs served written discovery requests upon Defendant, South Bay Center SPE, LLC (“South Bay Center”). Plaintiff, Julia Alegria, propounded 288 written discovery requests, which included 96 Requests for Admission. Plaintiff, Jocelyn Espinoza propounded 193 written discovery requests, including 56 requests for admission. Responses were due November 16, 2024.
Beginning on November 7, 2024, Defense Counsel reached out to Plaintiff Alegria to request a brief extension of time to respond. At that time, Defense Counsel indicates that he had no contact information for Plaintiff Espinoza, so he requested that Plaintiff Alegria set up a phone call between the three of them. On November 12, 2024, the Parties were able to meet, and Defense Counsel requested an extension of three weeks, making the deadline for responses December 6, 2024. Defense Counsel states the Parties agreed to the extension. The following day, on November 13, 2024, Defense Counsel wrote an email addressed to Plaintiffs to confirm the extension in writing. However, later that night, at 8:19 p.m., Plaintiff Alegria responded and revoked the extension, leaving Defense Counsel with two days to respond.
On November 15, 2024, Defendant served responses to both Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant has failed to provide any valid responses that comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.210, et seq., and instead, only consist of objections.
As such, Plaintiffs have each brought a Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted.
B. Procedural
On November 22, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their respective Motions to Deem the Truth of the Matters Specified in that Requests for Admission Admitted. On December 17 2024, Defendant filed an opposition brief. On December 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a reply brief.
A. Legal Standard
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, “[i]f a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response,” 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 Civil Procedure § 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. The moving party is not required to meet and confer before bringing such a motion. (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
Plaintiffs incorrectly move on a Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280. However, as noted above, this motion is made when a party to whom requests for admission are directed, fails to serve any timely response. Here, Plaintiffs’ moving papers concede that Defendant served responses. The exhibits attached to the moving papers show that the responses were served November 15, 2024, one day before their due date. As such, Plaintiffs may not move on a Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280.
Instead, the Court notes that because Defendant provided responses via objections, Plaintiffs may instead move under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, for an order compelling a further response if they assert that an answer to a particular RFA is evasive of incomplete, or an objection to a particular request is without merit or too general. However, Plaintiffs have not moved for such a ruling, and thus, their Motions to have Requests for Admissions Deemed Admitted is DENIED.
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)).
As noted above, the Court is denying the Plaintiffs’ Motions as they were incorrectly brought. Thus, the sanctions are DENIED as well.