Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV19916, Date: 2023-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV19916, Date: 2023-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19916 Hearing Date: November 22, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motion for a deemed admitted order is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in part.

Background

On June 17, 2022, Plaintiff Paul Robert Ruggero (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Dionisio Rojas Hernandez (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 40 alleging one cause of action for motor vehicle arising from a motor vehicle accident that allegedly occurred on June 23, 2020 near the intersection of Arrow Highway and Mills Avenue in Claremont, California.

On August 3, 2022, Defendant filed an Answer.

On November 12, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant with discovery requests, including Requests for Admission (Set One). (Hobbs Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. A.) As of the filing of this motion, Defendant had not responded to the discovery requests. (Id., ¶ 9.)

On February 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for a deemed admitted order regarding Requests for Admission (Set One). Plaintiff also seeks sanctions. Defendant has not filed an opposition.

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. (Id., § 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.” (Id., § 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 matters contained 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).)

“[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.) “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 November 12, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Admission (Set One). (Hobbs Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. A.) Defendant did not respond. (Id., ¶ 9.)

Plaintiff need show nothing more. The motion for a deemed admitted order is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED. Given the relatively straightforward nature of a deemed admitted motion, and the economies of scale associated with filing multiple parallel motions, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $586.65, calculated as 1.5 hours of attorney work on the motion, multiplied by a reasonable rate for this work of $350 per hour, plus the filing fee of $61.65. (See Hobbs Decl., ¶ 10.)

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for a deemed admitted order..

The Court ORDERS that the Defendant is deemed to have admitted the matters specified in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (Set One).

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in part. Defendant and counsel of record Chavez Legal Group are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act to Plaintiff in the amount of $586.65 within 21 days of notice of this order.

Moving party to give notice.