Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV16295, Date: 2025-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16295    Hearing Date: April 14, 2025    Dept: 29

Gonzalez v. Salsgiver
22STCV16295
Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Deeming Defendant Sebastian Salsgiver to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Deeming Defendant City of Los Angeles to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Sebastian Salsgiver 

Tentative

The motions for deemed-admitted orders are denied without prejudice.

The motion to compel the deposition has been withdrawn.

Background

On May 17, 2022, Mizraim Morales Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Sebastian Salsgiver, City of Los Angeles (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 25 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an accident on June 24, 2020 at Cadillac Avenue and Venice Boulevard in Los Angeles.

On October 14, 2022, Defendants filed an answer.

On March 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed two motions for orders deeming each of the Defendants to have admitted the truth of the matters specified in Requests for Admission.

On March 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Salsgiver.

No opposition to the motions for the deemed-admitted orders has been filed.

On March 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of withdrawal of the motion to compel the deposition.

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., § 2023.020, subd. (a).)

“[P]roviding untimely responses does not divest the trial court of its authority [to hear a motion to compel responses].”  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 407.)  Even if the untimely response “does not contain objections [and] substantially resolve[s] the issues raised by a motion to compel responses … the trial court retains the authority to hear the motion.”  (Id. at pp. 408-409.)  This rule gives “an important incentive for parties to respond to discovery in a timely fashion.”  (Id. at p. 408.)  If “the propounding party [does not] take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions,” the trial court may “deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions.”  (Id. at p. 409; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)  

Discussion

As a threshold matter, the proofs of services for the two motions for deemed-admitted orders are unsigned. No opposition has been filed.

Absent the filing of a proper proof of service, the Court must deny these motions without prejudice.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motions for deemed-admitted orders.

The motion to compel the deposition has been withdrawn.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.