Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 23BBCV01301, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01301    Hearing Date: March 1, 2024    Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT V

ANDREAS GEORGE, et al. Plaintiffs, vs. JIA LUN SHAO, et al., Defendants. Case No.: 23BBCV01301 Hearing Date: March 1, 2024 Time: 8:30 a.m. [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Andreas George, McKenna Warde, Jaxon Eddy, by and through his Guardian ad Litem Andreas George

RESPONDING PARTY: None

Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

On June 9, 2023, Plaintiffs Andreas George, McKenna Warde, Jaxon Eddy, by and through his Guardian ad Litem Andreas George filed a complaint against Defendants Jia Lun Shao and Eya “Rei” Hua, alleging (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Statutory Breach of the Warranty of Habitability; (3) Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability; (4) Violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq.; (5) Private Nuisance; (6) Negligence; (7) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (10) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith & Fair Dealing; (11) Violation of LAMC § 45.33; and (12)

Constructive Eviction. On August 22, 2023, Cross-Complainant Jia Lun Shao filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Andreas George and McKenna Warde. On February 26, 2024, Jia Lun Shao filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint against the same Cross-Defendants for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Negligence; (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (4) Nonpayment of Rent.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

(a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . . . The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.

(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

(b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

A. Requests for Admissions

Plaintiff moves for an order deeming the truth of all matters specified in the requests for admission served on Defendant Jia Lun Shao on November 7, 2023, and sanctions in connection with the motion.

The court finds Plaintiff’s requests regarding its requests for admission are merited.

On November 7, 2023, Plaintiff served Requests for Admissions (Set One) upon Defendant via electronic transmission. (Martirosyan Decl. ¶ 3, Exhib. A.) After receiving no verified responses Plaintiff extended Defendant’s time to respond to January 8, 2024. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5, Exhib. B.)

Defendant has failed to timely provide responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, and does not oppose this motion. Accordingly, the court grans the motion and find the truth of the matters contained within the requests are deemed admitted.

B. Sanctions

“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, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff seeks $610.00 against Defendant in connection with filing the instant motion. However, in the attached declaration and page 5 of the memorandum, Plaintiff seeks $510.00 in sanctions. Plaintiff’s counsel Hripsime Martirosyan spent one hour drafting this motion and anticipates one hour to attend the hearing. (Martirosyan Decl. ¶ 7.) Martirosyan has an hourly rate of $450. (Ibid.) Counsel incurred a filing fee of $60.00. The court finds the requested amount to be reasonable and grants sanctions in the amount of $610.00.

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for an order deeming the RFAs served on Defendant admitted. Furthermore, the Court GRANTS sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $610.00.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.