Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV10945, Date: 2025-05-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10945    Hearing Date: May 12, 2025    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 5-12-25 c/f 3-26-25

Case #23STCV10945

Trial Date: 9-8-25

ADMISSIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Victor Rane Group, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Stephanie Windes

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On May 16, 2023, Plaintiff Stephanie Windes filed a complaint for 1. Retaliation In Violation Of California Labor Code §1102.5; 2. Retaliation In Violation Of California Government Code §12940, Et Seq. (Feha); 3. Failure To Prevent Discrimination & Retaliation In Violation Of The Feha; 4. Failure To Pay Overtime Wages; 5. Failure To Pay All Wages Upon Termination; 6. Failure To Provide Accurate Wage Statements; And, 7. Wrongful Constructive Termination In Violation Of Public Policy (Labor Code §1102.5 & Government Code §12940 Et Seq.). Defendant Victor Rane Group, Inc. answered the complaint on September 4, 2024.

RULING: Granted.

Defendant Victor Rane Group, Inc. moves to deem Request for Admissions (set one) served on Plaintiff Stephanie Windes admitted.

Defendant represents service of requests for admissions on September 6, 2024. [Declaration of Ahllam Berri ¶ 5, Ex. A.] After an extension to serve responses was given, no responses were provided. [Id., ¶¶ 6, 9.]

Plaintiff in opposition admits to late service of the responses, due to a medical condition impacting work. [Declaration of David Tibor, Ex. 1.] Defendant in an extensive reply contends the responses are neither verified, nor substantially compliant. Defendant also emphasizes the imposition of sanctions.

“The party to whom the requests for admission are directed shall sign the response under oath, unless the response contains only objections.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.240.) “I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5, subd. (a).) “A person verifying a pleading need not swear to the truth or his or her belief in the truth of the matters stated therein but may, instead, assert the truth or his or her belief in the truth of those matters ‘under penalty of perjury.’” (Code Civ. Proc., § 446, subd. (a).)

The attached copy of the responses includes a verification executed by Stephanie Windes, which states: “I have read the foregoing PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET 1 and know the contents thereof. To the extent I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth therein, the same are true and correct. [¶] Insofar as said matters are a composite of the information of many individuals, I do not have personal knowledge concerning all of the information contained in said Response, but I am informed and believe that the information set forth therein for which I lack personal knowledge is true and correct. [¶] I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.”

The plain language of the authority regarding verification requires execution as to belief in truth by the declarant. A conditional statement based on the conduct of non-declarant parties, while perhaps understandable given the phrasing of certain requests, in no way excuses compliance with the verification requirement. Any such issues with the requests should have been addressed as an objection. The late served responses however waived all objections. Plaintiff makes no explicit request for relief from the late responses and waiver objections, and the court declines to present or consider such a position on behalf of Plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a); Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784–785 [“When [a party] fails to raise a point or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived”].)

The court sympathizes with counsel’s medical condition and respects the decision to disclose such a private, personal matter. The court however must still interpret the law and circumstances presented. An argument can be made that at least some of the responses are sufficient given the waiver of objections and provision of all “deny” responses, thereby rendering the motion moot. “As one court put it: ‘If the party manages to serve its responses before the hearing, the court has no discretion but to deny the motion. But woe betide the party who fails to serve responses before the hearing.’” (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776.) Nevertheless, the court agrees with Defendant that the court remains unable to distinguish where Plaintiff attests to the response or otherwise deflects potential responsibility. The court declines to make such a determination and instead finds a lack of sufficiently and properly verified responses. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636; see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408–409.)

The motion is therefore Granted. The court imposes sanctions in the amount of $250 against Plaintiff Stephanie Windes, joint and several with counsel, and payable within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff may seek relief from the admissions, but the court will require a separately noticed motion.

The court also declined to specially advance the hearings for the four remaining motions to compel discovery from June 12 to July 3, 2025, but encourages Plaintiff to provide responses to said items before the hearings in hopes of more expediently preparing the case for trial currently scheduled on September 8, 2025. If the parties are able to resolve the discovery disputes without the necessity of the hearings, the court requests moving party remove the items from the court calendar via the reservation system.

Motions to compel responses scheduled for June 12 and 30, and July 1 and 3, 2025, respectively.

Defendant to provide notice.