Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV02522, Date: 2024-12-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02522    Hearing Date: December 3, 2024    Dept: 29

Tsai v. Akins
22STCV02522
Defendant’s Motion for Order Deeming Plaintiff to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One)

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

On January 21, 2022, Emily Tsai (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Joan Akins (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 50 for negligence arising out of an alleged automobile accident on January 22, 2020.

On November 21, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.

On November 7, 2024, Defendant filed this motion for an order deeming Plaintiff to have admitted the truth of the matters specified in Defendant’s Requests for Admission (Set One).  Defendant also seeks sanctions.

No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

A party must respond to requests for admission within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd.(a).) If a party to whom requests for admission are directed does not provide a timely response, the propounding party “may move for an order that … the truth of [the] matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for such a motion, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2033.280; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).)  In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

The court “shall” make the order that the truth of the matters specified in the request be deemed admitted unless the court “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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c); see St. Mary v. Super. Ct. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778-780.)

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion [to deem admitted the truth of the matters specified in the requests for admission].”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), defines “[m]isuses of the discovery process” to include “[f]ailing to respond to or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”  Where a party or attorney has engaged in misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose a monetary sanction in the amount of “the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 requires motions be served and filed 16 court days before the hearing. Sixteen court days before this December 3, 2024 hearing was November 6, 2024; Defendant served and filed this motion on November 7, 2024.

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant’s Motion for a Deemed-Admitted Order.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.