Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV32003, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32003    Hearing Date: March 6, 2024    Dept: 29

Defendant’s Motion for a Deemed-Admitted Order

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Background

On September 30, 2022, Plaintiff Emily Givhan (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint against Food 4 Less of California Inc., dba Food 4 Less, Katrina Hernandez, and Does 1 through 100 for Negligence and Premises Liability for injuries Plaintiff alleged sustained on October 6, 2021.  

On October 19, 2022, Defendant Alpha Beta Company dba Food 4 Less (erroneously sued as Food 4 Less of California Inc., dba Food 4 Less) (“Defendant”) filed its answer.  

On June 16, 2023, the Court granted the motion of Plaintiff’s attorney of record to be relieved as counsel.

On November 17, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with Requests for Admission (Set One.) (Breitburg Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.)  Plaintiff was served by mail, with a courtesy copy by email.  (Id, Exh. A.)

 Plaintiff did not respond to the requests for admission.  (Id., ¶ 3.)

On January 29, 2024, Defendant filed this motion for an order deeming admitted the truth of the matters specified in Requests for Admission (Set No. One).  Defendant also seeks sanctions.  Plaintiff was served with the motion by email only.

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).)

Discussion

Defendant served Plaintiff on November 17, 2023, with Requests for Admission (Set One.) (Breitburg Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.)  Plaintiff did not respond.  (Id., ¶ 3.)

Defendant filed this motion and served Plaintiff, who is representing herself in pro per, by email only.  Although email service may be mandatory for represented parties, litigants who are in pro per are not subject to mandatory email service, and Defendant has presented no evidence that Plaintiff has consented to email service.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c)(2); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(c)(3)(B).)

Accordingly, the motion was not properly served and is denied without prejudice.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion without prejudice.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.