Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV26543, Date: 2025-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV26543    Hearing Date: March 24, 2025    Dept: 29

Torobekov v. Obika
23STCV26543
Defendant’s Motion for Order Deeming Plaintiff to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One)

Tentative

The motion is denied.

The requests for sanctions is granted in part.

Background

Two related cases arise out of a motor vehicle accident on March 5, 2022, at or near the intersection of Franklin Avenue and North Harvard Boulevard in Los Angeles.

In this action, the first filed action, on October 30, 2023, Daniel Torobekov (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Martins Somto Obika (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 100 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On December 5, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.

In the second filed action (Case No. 24STCV05267), on March 1, 2024, Edgardo Hernandez filed a complaint against Defendant, Plaintiff, Blue Jam Cafe, Grubhub Holdings Inc., Grubhub Inc., and Does 1 through 50.

On June 27, 2024, Grubhub Inc. filed an answer.

On July 16, 2024, Defendant filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Plaintiff, Blue Jam Cafe, Grubhub Holdings Inc., and Roes 1 through 10.

On August 16, 2024, Blue Jam Café – Tarzana (erroneously sued as Blue Jam Cafe) filed an answer to the complaint and a cross-complaint against Defendant, Plaintiff, and Roes 1 through 10

On September 10, 2024, Grubhub Holdings, Inc., filed an answer to Defendant’s cross-complaint.

On September 17, 2024, Defendant filed an answer to Blue Jam Cafe – Tarzana’s cross-complaint.

On October 10, 2024, Grubhub Holdings, Inc. filed an answer to the complaint.

On October 16, 2024, the two cases were related.

On February 26, 2025, Defendant filed this motion for an order deeming Plaintiff to have admitted the truth of the matters specified in Requests for Admission (Set One).  Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions.

No timely opposition was filed.

On March 21, 2025, just one court day before the hearing, Plaintiff filed a declaration in response to the motion.

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., § 2023.020, 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.)  “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

Defendant served Plaintiff with Request for Admissions (Set One), on January 16, 2025. (Messina Decl., ¶ 6 & Exh. A.) Plaintiff did not timely respond.

One court day before the hearing on this motion, Plaintiff filed a declaration in response to the motion.  In the declaration, Plaintiff states (among other things) that he has not been able to contact his attorney, that he has a different attorney in the related case, and he has become aware of this motion.  Plaintiff attaches to the declaration verified responses to the requests for admission.

The Court has reviewed the responses and finds that they are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.  Accordingly, the motion for a deemed-admitted order is denied.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel.  It is “mandatory” for the Court to award sanction against “the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  Based on the Court’s review of Plaintiff’s declaration, the Court determines that it is the conduct of Plaintiff’s attorney that necessitated this motion.

The request for sanctions against Plaintiff’s attorney is granted.  The Court sets sanctions in the requested amount of $500, based on two hours of attorney time multiplied by a reasonable billing rate of $250 per hour.  (Messina Decl., ¶ 10.)

No sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Defendant’s request for a deemed-admitted order.

The Court DENIES Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff’s attorney.

The Court ORDER Plaintiff’s counsel of record Gregory Byberg, Esq. to pay $500 in sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act to Defendant (through counsel) within 30 days of notice.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.