Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 23BBCV01668, Date: 2025-01-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23BBCV01668 Hearing Date: January 14, 2025 Dept: V
MOVING PARTIES: Defendant PIERRE
KASBARIAN
RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed
The court considered the moving
papers.
BACKGROUND
This action arises out of a
motor vehicle collision. Plaintiffs Donald Williams (Donald) and Dawn Williams
(Dawn) filed the complaint against defendant on July 24, 2023, bringing a motor
vehicle cause of action. Plaintiffs allege that on July 22, 2021, they were on
Interstate 5 at a complete stop when defendant Pierre Kasbarian negligently
rear-ended plaintiffs’ vehicle causing injuries to plaintiffs.
Defendant filed a motion to
compel for plaintiff Dawn on August 1, 2024 and the motion to compel for
plaintiff Donald on August 5, 2024. No oppositions have been received.
LEGAL STANDARD
The requesting party may move
for an order compelling further responses to requests for admissions if any of
the following apply: (1) an answer to a particular request is evasive or
incomplete or (2) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too
general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290(a).)
Notice of the motion must be
given within 45 days from responses, supplemental responses, or a specific
later date agreed to in writing; otherwise the requesting party waives its
right to compel further responses to the requests for admission. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2033.290(c).) The time period is mandatory and jurisdictional in the
sense that it renders the Court without authority to rule on motions to compel
other than to deny them. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403,
1410.)
The motion shall be accompanied
by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section
2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(b)(1).) The purpose of the meet and
confer requirement is to encourage the parties to make serious effort to work
out differences informally and avoid a need for a formal order. (Stewart v.
Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 1006, 1016.)
Under Rule of Court 3.1345, the
movant must submit a separate statement along with the motion to compel further
responses. The movant must include specific facts showing good cause justifying
further responses.
The court shall impose a
monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against
any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to
compel further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction
acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the
imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290(d).)
DISCUSSION
A. Timeliness
Plaintiffs Donald and Dawn
served their unverified responses to Requests for Admission (Set One) on
February 15, 2024. (Mot. re Donald, Hawkins Decl., ¶ 6; Exh. 3; Mot. re Donald,
Hawkins Decl., ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs served verifications on June 18, 2024. (Mot. re
Donald, Hawkins Decl., ¶ 13; Exh. 7; Mot. re Dawn, Hawkins Decl., ¶ 12.)1
Notice of the motion needed to have been served by August 5, 2024. Here,
defendant served the notice of the motions on August 1, 2024, thus, the motions
were timely.
B. Meet and Confer
On March 15, 2024, defendant’s
counsel sent a meet and confer letter to plaintiffs’ counsel detailing the
insufficiencies of plaintiff Donald’s responses. (Mot. re Donald, Hawkins
Decl., ¶ 10; Exh. 5; Mot. re Dawn, Hawkins Decl., ¶ 10.) Counsel emailed each
other regarding the deadline for further responses. (Mot. re Donald, Hawkins
Decl., ¶ 1; Exh. 6; Mot. re Dawn, Hawkins Decl., ¶ 11.) While defendant’s
efforts to meet and confer were minimal, the court will consider the motion on
the merits.
C. Requests for Admission –
Plaintiff Donald
Defendant moves for an order
compelling further responses to Requests for Admission nos. 4, 12, 14, and 16.
RFA no. 4
Plaihtiff’s answer that he is
unable to admit or deny is not a sufficient response. Under Code of Civil
Procedure section 2033.290(a)(1), a party may move for further response if an
answer to a request is evasive. Plaintiff’s response is evasive; either he
currently has an appointment to see a health care provider for examination or
treatment related to the incident or he does not. The court grants the motion
as to RFA no. 4.
RFA no. 12
Plaintiff’s answer that he is
unable to admit or deny is evasive and the request is relevant to determining
if the areas of his body that he claims was injured because of the incident
were already injured. The court grants the motion as to RFA no. 12.
RFA no. 14
Plaintiff’s response is that he
is unable to admit or deny the request because it is unintelligible. The
request is not unintelligible. It asks plaintiff to admit that he did not seek
medical attention on the day of the incident. The court grants the motion as to
RFA no. 14.
RFA no. 16,
Plaintiff’s answer that he can
neither admit nor deny is insufficient and the court grants the motion as to
RFA no. 16.
D. Requests for Admission –
Plaintiff Dawn
Defendant moves for an order
compelling further responses to Requests for Admission nos. 4, 11, 14, 16, and
26.
RFA no. 4, Plaintiff’s response
is evasive; either she currently has an appointment to see a health care
provider for examination or treatment related to the incident or she does not.
Thus, the court grants the motion to RFA no. 4.
RFA no. 11
Plaintiff’s response that she
is unable to neither confirm nor deny that the alleged pain in any of her body
parts that she alleges was not caused by the accident is insufficient.
Plaintiff The court grants the motion as to RFA no. 11.
RFA no. 14
This request asks plaintiff to
admit that she did not seek medical attention on the day of the incident which
is information that plaintiff has personal knowledge of and is relevant. The
court grants the motion as to RFA no. 14.
RFA no. 16
The term services is not
unclear and information regarding whether plaintiff sought treatment through a
medical lien is relevant to plaintiff’s claim for damages for medical treatment
for injuries she received as a result of the incident. The court grants the
motion as to RFA no. 16.
RFA no. 26
Plaintiff she has stated that
she cannot admit nor deny since she lacks sufficient knowledge. The court
denies the motion as to RFA no. 26.
E. Sanctions
Defendant moves for sanctions
against plaintiff Donald and his counsel, Daniel J. Hanecak, Esq., Chandler C.
Martin, Esq., and Hanecak Law Inc. in the total amount of $1,572.00, jointly
and severally. The court finds that sanctions are warranted, but reduces the
amount requested and grants sanctions in the amount of $585.00 (2.5hrs. at
$210.00/hr. plus $60.00 in filing fees) against plaintiff Donald and his
counsel, Daniel J. Hanecak, Esq., Chandler C. Martin, Esq., and Hanecak Law
Inc., jointly and severally.
Defendant also moves for
sanctions against plaintiff Dawn and her counsel, Daniel J. Hanecak, Esq.,
Chandler C. Martin, Esq., and Hanecak Law Inc. in the total amount of
$1,572.00, jointly and severally. The court grants sanctions in the amount of
$585.00 (2.5hrs. at $210.00/hr. plus $60.00 in filing fees) against plaintiff
Dawn and her counsel, Daniel J. Hanecak, Esq., Chandler C. Martin, Esq., and
Hanecak Law Inc., jointly and severally.
Based on the foregoing, the
court GRANTS the motion to compel plaintiff Donald to provide further responses
to Requests for Admission nos. 4, 12, 14, and 16.
The court GRANTS the motion to
compel plaintiff Dawn to provide further responses to Requests for Admission
nos. 4, 11, 14, and 16.
The court orders plaintiffs to
provide further responses within 20 days.
The court DENIES the motion to
compel plaintiff Dawn to provide further responses to Requests for Admission
no. 26.
The court awards sanctions
against plaintiff Donald and his counsel, Daniel J. Hanecak, Esq., Chandler C.
Martin, Esq., and Hanecak Law Inc. in the total amount of $585.00, jointly and
severally, and orders them to pay MacDonald & Cody LLP within 20 days.
The court awards sanctions
against plaintiff Dawn and her counsel, Daniel J. Hanecak, Esq., Chandler C.
Martin, Esq., and Hanecak Law Inc. in the total amount of $585.00, jointly and
severally, and orders them to pay MacDonald & Cody LLP within 20 days.
Defendant is ordered to give
notice of this ruling.