Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV09677, Date: 2024-12-30 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT  (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.  4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) 
IMPORTANT:  In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely.  The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited.  The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. 
ALSO NOTE:  If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar.  THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 22STCV09677    Hearing Date: December 30, 2024    Dept: 29

Lopez v. Qozi-Habash
22STCV09677
Defendants’ Motion for Order Deeming Plaintiffs to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On March 18, 2022, Ariana Lopez, both individually and as successor in interest to the Estate of Estela Moreno; Gerado Lopez-Moreno; and Omar Alonso Hernandez (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the complaint in this action against Tedmu Qozi-Habash, Daniel Kijner, Cheridah Jones Seeley, Lakeside Community Healthcare, Regal Medical Group, and Providence Holy Cross Medical Center, and Does 1 through 100.  Plaintiffs assert a survival claim for professional negligence; a wrongful death claim for professional negligence, a survival claim of negligent hiring, retention, or supervision, and a wrongful death claim for negligent hiring, retention, or supervision, all arising out of alleged errors in the diagnosis and treatment of decedent Estela Moreno.

On February 1, 2024, Providence Health System Southern California dba Providence Holy Cross Medical Center (erroneously sued as Providence Holy Cross Medical Center) (“Providence”) filed an answer.

On April 5, 2024, Tedmur Qozi-Habash M.D. (erroneously sued as Tedmu Qozi-Habash) (“Qozi-Habash”), Cheridah Jones Seeley, P.A. (“Seeley”), and Regal Medical Group, Inc. (erroneously sued as Regal Medical Group) (“Regal”) filed an answer.

On May 20, 2024, each of Qozi-Habash, Seeley, and Regal (collectively, “Defendants”) served discovery, including Requests for Admission (Set One), on each of the Plaintiffs.  (Rector Decl., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A-C.)  Plaintiffs did not respond.  (Id., ¶ 5.)

On November 15, 2024, Defendants filed this motion for a deemed-admitted order.

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

On May 20, 2024, each of the Defendants served each of the Plaintiffs with Requests for Admissions, Sets One. (Rector Decl., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A-C.)  No responses were served.  (Id., ¶ 5.)

No opposition has been filed.

Defendants need show nothing more.  The requests for admission were served, and no response has been received.  The motion for deemed-admitted orders is granted.

The Court notes, however, that Defendants filed a single motion for what should have been twelve motions. Combining discovery motions allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Filing fees are jurisdictional and it is mandatory for court clerks to demand and receive them. (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Thus, Defendants are ordered to pay additional filing fees. This ruling will be final ad effective only upon Defendants’ filing with the Court of proof of payment of the eleven additional filing fees.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for deemed-admitted orders.

The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff Ariana Lopez, individually, is DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED THE TRUTH of the matters specified in the Requests for Admission (Set One) served by each of Defendants Tedmur Qozi-Habash M.D., Cheridah Jones Seeley, P.A., and Regal Medical Group, Inc.

The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff Ariana Lopez, as successor in interest to the Estate of Estela Moreno, is DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED THE TRUTH of the matters specified in the Requests for Admission (Set One) served by each of Defendants Tedmur Qozi-Habash M.D., Cheridah Jones Seeley, P.A., and Regal Medical Group, Inc.

The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff Gerado Lopez-Moreno is DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED THE TRUTH of the matters specified in the Requests for Admission (Set One) served by each of Defendants Tedmur Qozi-Habash M.D., Cheridah Jones Seeley, P.A., and Regal Medical Group, Inc.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Omar Alonso Hernandez is DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED THE TRUTH of the matters specified in the Requests for Admission (Set One) served by each of Defendants Tedmur Qozi-Habash M.D., Cheridah Jones Seeley, P.A., and Regal Medical Group, Inc.

Moving parties are ORDERED to file the eleven additional filing fees and to file and serve a notice of proof of payment.

Moving parties are ORDERED to give notice.