Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 19STCV28803, Date: 2024-08-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV28803    Hearing Date: August 20, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 8-20-24

Case #19STCV28803

Trial Date: 10-17-24

ADMISSIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Evelyn Gonzalez

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Geeta Mehta, Executor of the Estate of Anil Mehta

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motions to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiffs allege substandard habitability conditions in an apartment building owned and/or managed by Defendants. On August 14, 20219, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for Violation of Civil Code section 1942.4, Tortious Breach of Warranty of Habitability, Private Nuisance, Business and Professions Code section 17200, and Negligence.

RULING: Denied.

Plaintiff Evelyn Gonzalez, et al. moves to deem Requests for Admissions Admitted based on the failure to serve a verification with the responses. (The notice of motion only identifies Evelyn Gonzalez, but the attached exhibit lists a number of Plaintiffs as the propounding parties.) Plaintiff alternatively moves to compel further responses. The court electronic filing system shows no opposition or reply at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

The motion was only reserved as a motion to deem responses to admissions admitted. The court will not consider any motion to compel further responses, due to the improper reservation of such a motion.

The motion to deem admissions admitted relies on the lack of verification. Unverified responses constitute no response. (Appleton v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-636.) Pure objections however need not contain a verification. [Declaration of Shilpa Anand.]  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.240, subd. (a).) Plaintiff otherwise concedes the objections were timely served, thereby precluding any finding of a waiver of objections. The motion is therefore DENIED on this basis.

Even if the court considered the improperly reserved and noticed motion to compel further responses, the motion lacks sufficient support. The motion was timely filed after service of the objections, and also includes a separate statement. The court however finds an insufficient meet and confer effort supporting such a motion. The meet and confer only addresses the lack of verification without any address on the merits of the objections. The motion is therefore denied either way.

Three more motions on admissions for August 21, and September 16, 2024, a motion for protective order and deem admissions admitted on September 18, two motions to compel deposition on October 9, and 16, 204, and five (5) scheduled motions to compel further responses in January 2025. The latter five items are scheduled well after the October 17, 2024, trial date. Any and all efforts to advance any of the numerous hearings via stipulation or ex parte motion to a date before the trial date may lead to the sua sponte setting of an expedited OSC re: Discovery Referee. The court encourages the parties to meet and confer.

Plaintiff to give notice.