Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21ST03021CV, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21ST03021CV    Hearing Date: September 12, 2022    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     September 12, 2022                           TRIAL DATE: NONE SET

CASE:                         Jacob Aaron Morayniss, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV03021

MOTION FOR ORDER DEEMING TRUTH OF MATTERS IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AS ADMITTED

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiffs Jacob Aaron Morayniss and John David Morayniss

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a lemon law action filed on January 15, 2021. Plaintiffs leased a new 2021 Audi RS Q8 Quattro which Plaintiffs allege was delivered with serious defects including engine and electrical system defects.

            Plaintiff moves for an order deeming the truth of matters stated in their Requests for Admissions as admitted.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Deeming the Truth of Matters Stated in Their Requests for Admission as Admitted is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

When a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to respond, the party propounding the requests may move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(b).) “The court shall make this order [deeming the requests admitted], unless it finds that the party to whom the request for admissions 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(c).)   

            On December 9, 2021, Plaintiffs served Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One on Defendant. (Declaration of Gregory Sogoyan ISO Mot. Deem RFAs Admitted ¶ 4.) On January 11, 2022, Defendant requested and received an extension to January 25, 2022 to respond to the propounded discovery. (Id. ¶ 6.) Defendant served responses with objections on February 9, 2022. (Id. ¶ 10; Exh. 4.)

            Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220 states:

(a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(b) Each answer shall:

(1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.

(2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue.

(3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.

(c) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.

            Defendant argues in opposition that, as the Court granted Defendant’s motion for relief from waiver of objections on July 13, 2022, this motion is mooted by the Court’s ruling. In reply, Plaintiffs argue that the motion is not mooted because Defendant is not entitled to relief from waiver of objections if the responses are not substantially code-compliant. As the Court has already ruled on the issue of relief from waiver of objections to the requests for admissions, Plaintiffs are not entitled to relitigate this issue. Defendant has responded to the Requests for Admissions, and has raised objections in addition to substantive responses to each of the 21 Requests for Admissions. (Sogoyan Decl. Exh. 4.) Whether or not those objections are valid or the responses are evasive or otherwise inadequate is outside the scope of this motion. The Court has ruled that Defendant is entitled to raise objections to the requests, and Defendant has done so. The Court therefore cannot find, for the purposes of this motion, that the responses are inadequate.

That said, in reviewing Defendant’s responses, the Court notes that, although Defendant’s Responses to Requests for Admissions Nos. 15 through 20 consist of flat admissions or denials, (Sogoyan Decl. Exh. 4. pp.11-15), which are likely code-compliant regardless of the assertion or validity of any objections, the remainder of Defendant’s responses (see, generally, Sogoyan Decl. Exh. 4) appear highly evasive, do not delineate what they admit as true or deny as false, and profess an inability to address basic legal questions that undermines any contention that the responses consist of a good-faith effort to investigate reasonably available sources. (See Chodos v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 318, 322.) Although the Court does not reach the issue of the validity of Defendant’s objections here, if those objections do not withstand scrutiny, the Court is doubtful that the remainder of Defendant’s responses are substantially code-compliant.  The parties should engage in a meaningful meet and confer process before the filing of any motion to compel further responses.

CONCLUSION:

For the reasons explained above, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Deeming the Truth of Matters Stated in Their Requests for Admission as Admitted is DENIED.

Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2022                            ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.