Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 23BBCV01668, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23BBCV01668 Hearing Date: July 3, 2024 Dept: V
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT
DEPARTMENT V
DONALD WILLIAMS;
DAWN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PIERRE
KASBARIAN, and DOES 1 to 25,
Defendants.
Case No.:
23BBCV01668
Hearing Date:
July 3, 2024
Time: 9:00 a.m.
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ORDER THAT MATTERS IN DEFENDANT’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
FOR ADMISSION BE DEEMED ADMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS DONALD WILLIAMS AND DAWN
WILLIAMS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR COUNSEL, DANIEL J.
HANECAK OF HANECAK LAW, INC. IN THE SUM OF $1,480.00
MOVING PARTIES: Defendant PIERRE KASBARIAN
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs DONALD WILLIAMS and DAWN
WILLIAMS
The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and
reply.
BACKGROUND
This action arises out of a motor vehicle collision.
Plaintiffs Donald Williams and Dawn Williams filed the complaint against
defendant on July 24, 2023, alleging that defendant Pierre Kasbarian
negligently rear-ended plaintiffs’ vehicle causing injuries to plaintiffs.
Defendant filed the instant motion on April 12, 2024.
Plaintiffs filed their opposition on June 18, 2024. Defendant filed his reply
on June 26, 2024.
LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280,
subdivision (b), a “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).” 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(c).)
DISCUSSION
A. Timeliness
Plaintiffs argues that defendant failed to timely file this
motion 45 days from the date of response under Code of Civil Procedure
2033.290. That rule applies to motions to compel further responses, but
defendant’s motion seeks and order deeming matters admitted. The 45 day timing
ruling is inapplicable and the motion is not time barred. (Brigante v. Huang
(1993) 20 CA4th 1569, 1584 (disapproved on other grounds).)
B. Requests for Admission
Defendant served Request for Admission, Set One, to
plaintiffs on November 29, 2023, by email. (Decl. of Dean L. Chalamidas, Esq.,
¶ 3; Exhs. A, B.) Plaintiffs’ response were due on January 1, 2024. On November
29, 2023, plaintiffs’ counsel requested a 30-day extension to February 1, 2024,
which was granted. (Decl. of Dean L. Chalamidas, Esq., ¶ 4.) On January 31,
2024, plaintiffs’ counsel requested a two-week extension setting the new
deadline to respond to February 15, 2024. (Decl. of Dean L. Chalamidas, Esq., ¶
4.) Plaintiffs served unverified responses to the Request of Admission, Set
One, on February 15, 2024. (Decl. of Dean L. Chalamidas, Esq., ¶ 5; Exhs. C,
D.) Defendant’s counsel, upon review of the responses, sent a meet and confer
letter for further responses on March 15, 2024, setting a deadline of March 18,
2024. (Decl. of Dean L. Chalamidas, Esq., ¶ 6; Exh. E.) At the time of the
filing of the instant motion, plaintiffs had not provided properly verified
responses.
Plaintiffs’ counsel states that it provided the
verification on June 18, 2024, and states that the delay was due to innocent
inadvertence because it was not discovered until the preparation of the
opposition, that he received the verifications in the mail after plaintiffs
submitted their responses but the verifications were not provided to defendant.
(Decl. of Daniel J. Hanecak, Esq., ¶¶ 10, 11; Exh. 1.) Plaintiffs argue the
motion is moot because they provided the verification. In his reply, defendant concurs
that the motion is moot. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
2033.280(c), the court finds that because plaintiffs provided the verification
to their responses to the Requests for Admissions, the motion is moot.
Defendant requests the court award monetary sanctions
against plaintiffs and their counsel of record. “It is mandatory that the court
impose a monetary sanction . . . 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 finds that because
plaintiffs failed to serve a timely response to requests for admission until
this motion was brought, and thus necessitated the filing of the instant motion,
defendant is entitled to monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 2033.280(c). The court finds that the requested $1,480.00 and the
purported 8 hours of work on this motion is unreasonable. Accordingly, the
court awards sanctions in the amount of $740 (4 hours at $185/hour) against
plaintiffs Donald Williams and Dawn Williams and their attorney of record,
Daniel J. Hanecak of Hanecak Law, Inc., jointly and severally.
Defendant filed the instant motion for order that matters
in defendant’s first set of Requests for Admission be deemed admitted by
plaintiffs Donald Williams and Dawn William as one motion. A motion must be
brought separately for each discovery method at issue and each responding
party. Defendant is ordered to pay the additional filing fee.
Based on the foregoing, the motion is moot.
The court awards sanctions against plaintiffs Donald
Williams and Dawn Williams and their attorney of record, Daniel J. Hanecak of
Hanecak Law, Inc., jointly and severally, payable within 20 days of this order.
The court orders defendant to pay the additional filing fee
within 20 days of this order