Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV19436, Date: 2025-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19436    Hearing Date: March 17, 2025    Dept: 29

Wright v. City of Los Angeles
23STCV19436
Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Deeming Defendant to Have Admitted Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One)

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On August 15, 2023, Kristin J. Wright and Hoyt Hart (collectively “Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 15 for general negligence arising out of a dog bite sustained on August 13, 2022 after Plaintiff Wirght adopted a dog from Defendant’s South LA Shelter.

On December 22, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) adding the causes of actions for (1) negligence under Government Code sections 820(a), 815.4, and 815.2(a), (2) negligence per se, (3) negligent failure to warn, (4) negligent failure to evaluate dog, (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress, and (6) loss of consortium.

On February 8, 2024, Defendant filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Roes 1 to 10.

On February 13, 2025, Plaintiffs filed this motion for an order deeming Defendant to have admitted the truth of the matters specified in Requests for Admission (Set One).

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.” (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

Plaintiff Wright served Defendant with Requests for Admission (Set One), on September 16, 2024. (Edzant Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. 1.)  Defendant has failed to respond. (Id.¸¶ 6.)

Plaintiff need not show anything more.

Accordingly, the motion for a deemed-admitted order is granted as between Defendant and Plaintiff Wright.  (No relief is granted as to Plaintiff Hart, as he did not propound the discovery at issue.)

Plaintiffs do not request sanctions.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the Motion for a Deemed-Admitted Order.

The Court ORDERS that as between Defendant and Plaintiff Wright, Defendant City of Los Angeles IS DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED THE TRUTH of the matters specified in Plaintiff Wright’s Requests for Admission (Set One).

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.