Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV16423, Date: 2024-09-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV16423, Date: 2024-09-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16423 Hearing Date: September 17, 2024 Dept: 29

Miranda v. Melkonian
22STCV16423
Defendant’s Motion for Order Deeming Plaintiff Ilsa Miranda to Have Admitted the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On May 17, 2022, Ilsa Miranda, Bryan Miranda, and Erick Ojeda (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Vardui Melkonian (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 10 for motor vehicle negligence arising out of an automobile accident occurring on December 19, 2019.

Erick Ojeda is a minor and brings this action by and through his guardian ad litem, Ilsa Miranda.

Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on July 17, 2023.

On October 4, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.

In December 2023 and February 2024, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to name Wanda Ivascyn as Doe 1 and John Ivascyn as Doe 2.

On March 22, 2024, Wanda and John Ivascyn filed an answer and cross-complaint against Defendant. The cross-complaint was dismissed on May 1, 2024.

On August 15, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed motions to be relieved as attorney of record; these motions have yet to be heard and counsel has yet to be relieved. The Court notes, however, that the issue of being relieved is somewhat complicated by the presence of a minor plaintiff; the minor cannot represent himself, and the guardian ad litem cannot represent the minor without counsel.

On August 20, 2024, Defendant filed this motion for an order deeming Plaintiff Ilsa Miranda to have admitted the truth of the mattes specified in Requests for Admission (Set One). Defendant also seeks sanctions. Plaintiff’s counsel filed an opposition on September 4, and Defendant filed a reply on September 9.

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).)

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Discussion

On April 26, 2024, Defendant served Plaintiff Ilsa Miranda (“Plaintiff”) with Requests for Admission, Set One. (Zuniga Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. A.) Plaintiff has not responded. (Id., ¶ 5.)

Plaintiffs’ counsel filed an opposition noting that there is a motion to be relieved as counsel pending. But with or without the pending motion, Defendant has been waiting for responses for more than four months, and Plaintiff must accept the consequences of her failure to respond.

Requests for Admission were properly served, and no responses have been received. Defendant need show nothing more. The motion is granted.

Sanctions are mandatory in this circumstance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) The Court finds the fees and expenses identified by Defendant’s counsel are reasonable and grants sanctions in the amount requested. (See Zuniga Decl., ¶ 6.)

Under the circumstances, the Court finds that the failure to serve timely responses to the Requests for Admission were solely the responsibility of Plaintiff, and not counsel. Accordingly, sanctions are awarded only against Plaintiff.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for a deemed-admitted order.

The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff Ilsa Miranda is DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED the truth of the matters specified in Requests for Admission (Set One), propounded by Defendant Vardui Melkonian.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Ilsa Miranda to pay sanctions of $380.34 under the Civil Discovery Act to Defendant Vardui Melkonian within 30 days of notice.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.