Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV28792, Date: 2024-07-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV28792    Hearing Date: July 16, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:      July 16, 2024                                  TRIAL DATE: 03/04/2025

CASE:                         Worthen v. Hinds

CASE NO.:                 23STCV28792

MOTION FOR ORDER ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS AND FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant/ Cross-Complainant Collin Hinds

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Lawrence George Worthen

CASE HISTORY:

·         11/27/23: Complaint filed.

·         12/26/23: First Amended Complaint filed.

·         02/13/24: Cross-complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

The dispute arises from the lease of the real property located at 5622 Keniston Ave. Los Angeles CA, 90043. Plaintiff files the instant action against Defendant to recover rent paid based on alleged defects with the property not disclosed at the time of the creation of the parties’ landowner/tenant relationship.

            On May 14, 2024, Defendant/Cross-Complainant filed the instant motion for an order deeming his Requests for Admission, Set One, as admitted based on Plaintiff’s failure to respond under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280. Plaintiff filed his opposition on June 28, 2024. No reply has been filed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Collin Hinds’s Motion for an Order Establishing Admissions is DENIED as MOOT.

Request for Sanctions is DENIED.  

DISCUSSION:

Request for Admissions

Legal Standard

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).)  “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Id. at subd. (b).)  A motion dealing with the failure to respond, rather than with inadequate responses, does not require the requesting party to meet and confer with the responding party. (Deymer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4 [disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973]). There is no time limit within which a motion to have matters deemed admitted must be made. (Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)

Analysis  

Defendant provides the declaration of his counsel, Alain V. Bonavida, who states that he served Plaintiff with Defendant’s Request for Admissions, Set One (RFAs) via overnight delivery on April 2, 2024. (Bonavida Decl. ¶ 3; Exh. A.) The request was delivered to Plaintiff on April 3, 2024. (Id.; Exh. B.) Counsel swears that as of the filing of the instant motion, no responses have been received.  (Id. ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff’s opposition declaration states that he did not receive Defendant’s discovery request but did receive two USPS packages, one of which contained the instant motion. (Worthen Decl. ¶ 1.) By the time he filed his opposition, however, Plaintiff had responded to the RFAs. (Id. ¶ 3; Exh. A.)

Based on Plaintiff’s declaration, the motion appears to be moot under CCP § 2033.280(c) as Plaintiff has provided his responses to the request for admissions compliant with CCP §2033.220.  Defendant has not filed a reply challenging the responses. Therefore, the Court finds the motion to be moot.

Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone because of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Furthermore, it is “mandatory that the Court impose a monetary sanction…on 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).)

Defendant requests $3,150.02 be issued as a monetary sanction against Plaintiff. (Bonavida Decl. ¶ 5.) While the filing of late response does not negate the Court’s discretion to issue monetary sanctions, sanction in this case would be unwarranted as Plaintiff swears under penalty of perjury that his failure to respond timely was through no fault of his own. (Worthen Decl. ¶ 5.) Therefore, the Court declines to issue sanctions in this case.

Accordingly, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Collin Hinds’s Motion for an Order Establishing Admissions is DENIED as MOOT.

Request for Sanctions is DENIED

Moving party to give notice, unless waived. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   July 16, 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.