Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 24STCV13815, Date: 2025-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV13815, Date: 2025-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV13815 Hearing Date: February 21, 2025 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: February 21, 2025 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE: Lauren Pisciotta v. Kanye West, et al.

CASE NO.: 24STCV13815

MOTION TO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS STATED IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS (x3)

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Lauren Pisciotta

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Yeezy, LLC, Yeezy Apparel, LLC, and Yeezy Footwear, LLC

CASE HISTORY:

· 06/03/24: Complaint filed.

· 10/08/24: First Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is a sexual harassment and wrongful termination action. Plaintiff alleges that the individual Defendant subjected her to extensive harassment, sexually assaulted her, and fired her.

Plaintiff moves to deem the truth of matters stated in three sets of requests for admissions as admitted.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Stated in Requests for Admissions Propounded to Yeezy, LLC as Admitted is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Stated in Requests for Admissions Propounded to Yeezy Apparel, LLC as Admitted is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Stated in Requests for Admissions Propounded to Yeezy Footwear LLC as Admitted is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1110 to be paid Plaintiff’s counsel by Defendants Yeezy, LLC, Yeezy Footwear, LLC and Yeezy Apparel, LLC, jointly and several. The sanctions shall be paid within 20 days of this order.

This ruling is conditioned on Plaintiff’s payment of $120 in filing fees within 10 days of this order.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves to deem the truth of matters stated in three sets of requests for admissions as admitted.

Multiple Motions

Plaintiff moves, in one motion, to deem the truth of matters stated in connection with identical sets of requests for admissions propounded to three Defendants.

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.”].) 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 these motions on the payment of an additional $120 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 moves to deem the truth of matters stated in three sets of requests for admissions as admitted. Plaintiff served Yeezy Footwear, LLC and Yeezy Apparel, LLC with process via personal service on November 19, 2024. (See Proofs of Service filed November 26, 2024.) Plaintiff served Yeezy LLC with process via personal service on December 4, 2024. (See Proof of Service filed January 21, 2025.) Plaintiff then served these requests for admissions on the Defendants on December 16, 2024. (See Plaintiff’s Exhs. 1-3 POS.) As of the date this motion was filed, Plaintiff had not received any response. (Declaration of Mark Koorenny ISO Mot. ¶ 6.)

Defendants assert that Plaintiff had not properly served Defendants with process before propounding discovery, grounded entirely on the clerk’s rejection of Plaintiff’s requests for entry of default. Although Defendants claim that the rejections were for defects in the proofs of service of process, a cursory inspection of the record establishes that the rejections were for deficiencies in the requests, not in the proofs of service as to these Defendants filed on November 26, 2024, and January 21, 2025.

Defendants also attempt to cast doubt on service of the requests and of the moving papers by claiming in their briefing that “it is not yet clear” that the requests were served on Defendants, nor was the motion. (Opposition p.3:25-27.) However, the supporting Declaration of Defendants’ counsel is silent on this point. (See Declaration of Eduardo Martorell ISO Opp.) In sharp contrast to Defendants’ evasive response, Plaintiff’s requests for admissions are accompanied by proofs of service which state that the requests were served on each Defendant’s agent for service of process via personal service. (See Plaintiff’s Exhs. 1-3.) Plaintiff’s moving papers are likewise accompanied by a proof of service. (See Motion POS.) The Court credits these sworn statements over the unsupported arguments in Defendants’ opposition brief.

The uncontroverted evidence establishes that Defendants were served with the underlying discovery and with the moving papers. In that context, Defendants’ assertion that they “now stand ready to actively litigate this case” is immaterial. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, Defendants have one defense remaining against an order to deem the truth of these matters as admitted: to serve, before the date of the hearing on these motions, proposed responses which are substantially code-compliant. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) Defendants have not done so. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an order deeming the truth of the matters stated in these requests as admitted.

Sanctions

Plaintiff also requests sanctions of $2,160 against Defendants for their failure to provide responses to the requests for admissions. Sanctions pursuant to Chapter 7 of the Discovery Act, commencing with Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, are mandatory against a party who fails to respond to requests for admissions. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) The Court finds the amount of fees expended on this short, routine motion to be exorbitant and, thus, awards only $1,110 in sanctions covering 1.5 hours of attorney time and the $60 filing fee.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Stated in Requests for Admissions Propounded to Yeezy, LLC as Admitted is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Stated in Requests for Admissions Propounded to Yeezy Apparel, LLC as Admitted is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Stated in Requests for Admissions Propounded to Yeezy Footwear LLC as Admitted is GRANTED.

This ruling is conditioned on Plaintiff’s payment of $120 in filing fees within 10 days of this order.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2025 ___________________________________

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.