Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV28758, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV28758, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28758 Hearing Date: March 13, 2024 Dept: 29

Motion for Order for Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted filed by Defendant CJ Logistics America, LLC.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

This case arises out of a vehicle accident on September 8, 2020, near the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and South Hoover Street in Los Angeles. On September 2, 2022, Plaintiff James Shaff (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants CJ Logistics USA Corporation, Won Keun Park, and Does 1 to 10, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. On January 5, 2023, Defendants CJ Logistics America, LLC (erroneously sued as CJ Logistics USA Corporation) and Won Keun Park filed their answer.

On October 26, 2023, Defendant CJ Logistics America, LLC (“Defendant”) served Plaintiff with Requests for Admission (Set One). (Lorasbi Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff did not respond. (Id., ¶¶ 6-8.)

On December 18, 2023, Defendants filed this motion for an order deeming admitted the matters specified in the Requests for Admission. 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. (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 October 26, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with Requests for Admission (Set One). (Lorasbi Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff has not responded. (Id., ¶ 8.)

Defendant need show nothing more. Its motion is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Defendant does not request sanctions.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion.

The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff is deemed to have admitted the truth of the matters specified in Defendant CJ Logistics America, LLC’s Requests for Admission (Set One).

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.