Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 23STCV18472, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV18472, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18472 Hearing Date: February 29, 2024 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: February 29, 2024 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE: Robert Golightly v. Pacific Coast Sustainable Assets, LLC.

CASE NO.: 23STCV18472

MOTION TO DEEM TRUTH OF MATTERS IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Robert Golightly

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Pacific Coast Sustainable Assets, LLC, and Yajac Agriculture, LLC

CASE HISTORY:

· 10/24/22: Complaint filed.

· 08/04/23: First Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action for breach of contract. Plaintiff contracted with Defendants to manage and operate a farm owned by Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated in violation of the terms of his contract.

Plaintiff moves to deem the truth of matters in requests for admissions, and for sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters in Requests for Admissions is DENIED AS MOOT.

This ruling is conditioned on Defendants serving revised copies of the proposed Responses to Requests for Admissions without objections within 10 days of this order. If Defendants fail to serve these responses within the time allotted, Plaintiff’s Motion will instead be GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves to deem the truth of matters in requests for admissions, and for sanctions.

Multiple Motions

Multiple motions should not be combined into a single filing.¿(See¿Govt. Code,¿§ 70617(a)(4) [setting forth the required filing fee for each motion, application, or any other paper or request requiring a hearing];¿see¿also¿Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, [8:1140.1] at 8F-60 (The Rutter Group 2011)¿[“Motions to compel compliance with separate discovery requests ordinarily should be filed separately.”].)

Here, Plaintiff seeks in one motion to deem the truth of matters in two sets of requests for admissions. Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect.

The Court therefore conditions its ruling on this motion on the payment of an additional $60 in filing fees within 10 days of this order.

Legal Standard

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).)

Analysis

Plaintiff served Requests for Admissions (Set One) on Defendants Pacific Coast Sustainable Assets and Yajac Agriculture via email on December 7, 2023. (Plaintiffs’ Exhs. A-B.) As of the date this motion was served on Defendants, no responses had been received. (Declaration of Miles Carlsen ISO Mot. ¶¶ 2-3.).) Defendants state in opposition that complete responses were served via email on February 7, with respect to Defendant Yajac Agriculture, and on February 14, with respect to Defendant Pacific Coast Sustainable Assets. (Declaration of Niki Kalantari ISO Opp. Exh. 1.) However, these proposed responses are provided subject to objections. (See Id.) As Defendants’ responses are untimely, all objections have been waived by operation of law. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(a).) Defendants contend that these responses are proper because Plaintiff purportedly failed to properly serve the discovery requests, by serving them only on Faryan Afifi, Defendants’ counsel of record, at a time when he was hospitalized due to a motorcycle accident. (Declaration of Faryan Andrew Afifi ISO Opp. ¶ 2.) Defendants cite no authority establishing that it is improper service to serve counsel of record, even if the listed counsel is on medical leave. Although that argument might constitute good cause for relief from waiver of objections via a noticed motion, no such motion has been brought. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(a).) Defendants are therefore not entitled to assert objections in their Responses to Requests for Admissions.

That said, closer review of Defendants’ responses reveals that, notwithstanding the invalid objections, the proposed responses are identical denials of the requested admissions supported by an explanation. Each Request seeks an admission that the Defendant Pacific Coast Assets, LLC’s U.S. Return of Partnership Income Form for tax years 2014 through 2017 listed Plaintiff as owning a 25% partnership interest in Defendant Pacific Coast. (See Kalantari Decl. Exh. 1.) To each request, the responding Defendant denied the statement on the basis that Plaintiff owned a 25% profit share and not a partnership interest. (Id.) Leaving aside the objections, these responses are otherwise code-compliant. Had Defendants served these responses without objections, they would certainly have been sufficiently code-compliant to moot this motion.

In light of the substance of the proposed responses, the Court finds, conditioned on the service of responses without objections within 10 days, that the Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Stated is moot.

Sanctions

Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $3,186.65 against Defendants and their counsel for failing to respond to the Requests for Admissions.

Failure to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process for which sanctions may be imposed. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010(d); 2023.030(a).) Sanctions are mandatory on the party or attorney or both whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated a motion to deem requests for admissions as admitted. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).)

Plaintiff requests $3,186.65 in sanctions against Defendant only, based on 2.25 hours actually incurred at $500 per hour, plus an additional 4 anticipated hours, plus $61.65 in filing fees. (Carlsen Decl. ¶ 4.) This fee request is unreasonably inflated on its face. It should not take six hours to prosecute a straightforward motion to deem matters admitted. The Court therefore exercises its discretion to deny this request as unreasonably inflated. (Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal. 4th 970, 989-991.) Moreover, even if Plaintiff’s fee request were reasonable, the Court would not be inclined to award sanctions in view of the totality of the circumstances, including the service of the discovery requests on counsel at a time when counsel of record was hospitalized.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters in Requests for Admissions is DENIED AS MOOT.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 29, 2024 ___________________________________

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.