Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV33612, Date: 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33612    Hearing Date: February 6, 2023    Dept: 29

Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted and Request for Sanctions filed by Plaintiff David Hadder

Background

On October 20, 2021, Plaintiff David L. Hadder filed a complaint against Defendants Aneudi Bernardino Dominguez Dominguez and EAN Holdings, LLC, alleging two causes of action for (1) motor vehicle negligence and (2) negligent entrustment (as to EAN Holdings only).

Plaintiff alleges that on September 29, 2021, Defendant Dominguez struck Plaintiff with a vehicle owned by EAN Holdings, LLC when Plaintiff was a pedestrian, causing him to lose his balance and fall on the pavement face first, landing on his left shoulder.

On December 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC), adding Ignacio Rodriguez as a defendant and alleging a claim for negligent entrustment against him.

On November 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to deem admitted requests for admission and has requested sanctions. On January 24, 2023, Defendants Aneudi Bernardino Dominguez Dominguez and Ignacio Rodriguez filed an opposition.  On January 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Legal Standard

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: (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…. 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…. (c) The court shall make this order, 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.

Under CCP section 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”  Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) 

Discussion

On September 21, 2022, Plaintiff served Request for Admissions, Set One, on Defendants Aneudi Bernardino Dominguez Dominguez and Ignacio Rodriguez. (Seuthe Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. 1.) The responses were due on October 23, 2022. On October 28, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel wrote to defense counsel to meet and confer regarding Defendants’ failure to respond. (Id., Exh. 3.) As of the date of the preparation of this motion, Defendants have failed to provide responses.

In opposition, defense counsel argues defense counsel has been unable to contact Defendants and is therefore filing a motion to be relieved as counsel.

As Plaintiff properly served the discovery request and Defendants failed to provide any responses, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to an order establishing the truth of the matters in the request for admissions served on Defendants.  Therefore, the motion is granted. 

            Sanctions

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. Section 2033.280(c).) 

As the motion is granted, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.280(c) is also granted, as sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters admitted. However, the Court will award sanctions against Defendants and not their counsel as their counsel has been attempting to contact them in order to respond to the discovery. Also, the Court will award sanctions in a reduced amount due to the simplicity of the motion. Thus, the Court imposes sanctions against Defendants in the amount of $660 ($600 per hour x 2 hours, plus $60 in filing fees), to be paid within 30 days of this order.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to have matters in requests for admissions deemed admitted is GRANTED. Plaintiff is entitled to an order establishing the truth of the matters in the request for admissions, set one, served on Defendants. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED as to Defendants only. Defendants Aneudi Bernardino Dominguez Dominguez and Ignacio Rodriguez are ordered to pay $660 in monetary sanctions within 30 days of this order.