Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV45351, Date: 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45351    Hearing Date: February 15, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

 

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

 

 

HEARING DATE:     February 15, 2023                                         TRIAL DATE:  None set.

                                                          

CASE:                         Barry Ben-Ron et al. v. Maria De Lourdes Ruiz.

 

CASE NO.:                 21STCV45351

 

           

 

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AS ADMITTED

 

MOVING PARTY:               Cross-Defendant One Key Escrow Corp.

 

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of February 10, 2023

 

CASE HISTORY:

 

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

           

            This is a breach of contract case. Plaintiffs purchased a property from Defendant which Plaintiffs allege was subject to a PACE loan. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant agreed to pay off the loan through escrow, such that the property would be transferred to Plaintiffs clear of any lien and failed to do so, despite receiving money in an amount equal to the balance on the loan, from escrow.

 

            Cross-Defendant One Key Escrow Corp. moves for an order deeming its Requests for Admissions propounded to Cross-Complainant Maria De Lourdes Ruiz as admitted.

 

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Cross-Defendant’s Motion for Order Deeming the Truth of Matters Stated in Requests for Admission as Admitted is GRANTED.

 

Cross-Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

            Cross-Defendant One Key Escrow Corp. moves for an order deeming its Requests for Admissions propounded to Cross-Complainant Maria De Lourdes Ruiz as admitted.

Analysis

 

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 [deem 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 October 17, 2022, Cross-Defendant propounded its first set of Requests for Admissions to Cross-Complainant via email. (Declaration of Derik A. Sarkesians ISO Mot. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Responses were therefore due on November 21, 2022. No responses have been received to date. (Id. ¶ 5.) Cross-Defendant is therefore entitled to an order deeming its requests for admissions as admitted.

 

Sanctions

 

Cross-Defendant also requests sanctions in the amount of $2,310 against Cross-Complainant. Cross-Defendant’s notice of motion contains no reference to any request for sanctions, nor is there a request for sanctions evident from the caption page of this motion. An award of sanctions that has not properly been requested in a notice of motion is a potential violation of the opposing party’s right to due process. Further, even if the Court were to consider the request, Cross-Defendant requests $2,310, accounting for four hours of attorney time at $450 per hour for a basic discovery motion with no opposition. (Sarkesians Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.) This is an unreasonably inflated fee request, and the Court is within its authority to deny an unreasonable fee request outright. (See Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal. 4th 970, 989-991.) The Court therefore finds that Cross-Defendant is not entitled to sanctions.

 

CONCLUSION:

           

Accordingly, Cross-Defendant’s Motion for Order Deeming the Truth of Matters Stated in Requests for Admission as Admitted is GRANTED.

 

Cross-Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

 

            Moving Party to give notice.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Dated:  February 15, 2023                                          ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.