Judge: Stephen Morgan, Case: 22AVCV00226, Date: 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AVCV00226    Hearing Date: April 11, 2023    Dept: A14

Background

This is an automobile subrogation action.  Plaintiff Aspire General Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on September 11, 2020 at 20th Street West near Westwood Court in the City of Lancaster, defendant operator was operating a vehicle owned by, and with the consent, permission and knowledge of defendant owners and defendant operator so negligently operated, maintained and controlled the vehicle being driven by said defendant as to cause it to collide with Plaintiff’s insured’s vehicle. Plaintiff presents that, at all times, it was a party to the written contract of insurance with its insured which provided, among other things, that Plaintiff would reimburse its insured for damages to the vehicles owned by its insured and to persons operating or using such vehicles. Defendant Angel Danielle Burroughs (“Defendant”) is the only named defendant.

On April 05, 2022, Plaintiff filed its Complaint, alleging one cause of action for Subrogation.

On May 24, 2022, Defendant filed her Answer.

On March 09, 2023, Defendant filed this instant Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions (“RFAs”) Admitted (“the Motion”).

No Opposition has been filed. “All papers opposing a motion so noticed shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days. . .before the hearing.” (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1005(b).) “Section 1013, which extends the time within which a right may be exercised or an act may be done, does not apply to a notice of motion, papers opposing a motion, or reply papers governed by this section.” (Id.) The hearing is set for April 11, 2023. The Court notes that March 31, 2023 is a court holiday. As such, an Opposition was due by March 28, 2023. Should an Opposition be filed, it is now untimely.

Analysis

Standard for Deeming Admissions Admitted – Where there has been no timely response to a request for admission under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.010, the propounding 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. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(b).) Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c) states, in relevant part: “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. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).)

-----

Discussion

Application – Plaintiff moves to deem RFAs admitted against Defendant. Plaintiff establishes the following: (1) on January 26, 2023, Plaintiff served its RFAs on Defendant (Decl. Brian P. Tapper, ¶ 2, Exh. A) and Plaintiff’s responses were due on March 02, 2023. (Id. at ¶ 3.) The Court notes that Brian P. Tapper signed the Proof of Service himself. An attorney may sign the proof service of a document as doing so neither violates the rules of court nor constitutes perjury. (See Brown v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 320, 328 [attorney is not a party to the action]; In re Marriage of Tushinsky (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 136, 143 [same].) Plaintiff never received any responses or objections from Defendant. (Id. at ¶ 3.)

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.010 provides:

“Within 30 days after service of requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared, unless on motion of the requesting party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.”

(Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.010(a).)

30 days from January 26, 2023 is Saturday February 25, 2023. Plaintiff does not present that they extended the time for Defendant to respond. Thus, the facts provided by Plaintiff are sufficient to show that Defendant failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s properly served RFAs. Plaintiff demonstrates that it propounded a set of requests for admission on Plaintiff and she did not respond as the discovery requests became due.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.

-----

Conclusion

Plaintiff Aspire General Insurance Company’s Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted is GRANTED.