Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV39562, Date: 2024-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV39562, Date: 2024-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV39562 Hearing Date: October 23, 2024 Dept: 29

Gutierrez v. Aguilar
22STCV39562
Motion for Order Deeming Defendant Aguilar to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On December 20, 2022, Plaintiff Richard Gutierrez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Rodolfo Aguilar (“Aguilar”) and Does 1 through 10, alleging a cause of action for negligence arising out of a vehicle collision that occurred on March 26, 2021.

On September 15, 2023, Defendant Aguilar filed an answer.

On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name True Blue, Inc. (“True Blue”) as Doe 1 and PeopleReady, Inc. (“PeopleReady”) as Doe 2

On March 28, 2024, True Blue and PeopleReady filed an answer.

On September 25, 2024, True Blue and PeopleReady filed this motion to deem their co-defendant Aguilar to have admitted as true the matters specified in the moving parties’ requests for admissions.

On September 26, 2024, Aguilar’s counsel filed a declaration that opposes the motion in part and states that counsel has been unable to contact Aguilar “for some time now.”

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).)

Discussion

On June 5, 2024, Moving Defendants True Blue and PeopleReady Inc. served Defendant Aguilar with Request for Admissions, Set One. (Marcotte Decl., ¶ 5 & Exh. A.) On July 5, 2024, Aguilar served unverified Responses. (Id., ¶ 6 & Exh. B.) To date, the Responses remain unverified. (Id., ¶ 11; see also Nelson Decl., ¶ 4.)

True Blue and PeopleReady properly served Aguilar with Requests for Admission, and Aguilar has failed to provide verified responses. Unverified responses are the equivalent of no responses at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-36.)

Accordingly, the motion is granted.

True Blue and PeopleReady do not seek monetary sanctions.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendants True Blue and PeopleReady.

The Court ORDERS that Defendant Aguilar is DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED THE TRUTH of the matters specified in the Requests for Admission (Set One) served in this action by Defendants True Blue, Inc., and PeopleReady.

Moving parties are ordered to give notice.