Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 22PSCV00314, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. R at 909-802-1117 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 22PSCV00314    Hearing Date: September 13, 2022    Dept: R

PUENTE HILLS BUSINESS CENTER II, L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP vs SHUJUN ZHANG (22PSCV00314)

________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff’s MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED ALL MATTERS IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND FOR AN AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS

Responding Party: Unopposed as of Thursday, September 8, 2022

            Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED ALL MATTERS IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND FOR AN AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS is TBD. If Defendant appears at the hearing and offers an explanation as to the lack of response, the court will deny the motion.

Background

This case arises from a lease agreement. Plaintiff Puente Hills Business Center II, L.P. (“Plaintiff”) alleges the following against Defendant ShuJun Zhang (“Defendant”): The parties entered into a written lease agreement on January 19, 2018 for a five (5) year term. On February 18, 2022, Defendant abandoned and vacated the Premises. Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of $150,000.

On March 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed suit.

On May 17, 2022, the parties stipulated to set aside Defendant’s default that was entered on May 5, 2022.

On May 27, 2022, Defendant filed his Answer.

On June 23, 2022, Defendant filed a Substitution of Attorney. According to the Substitution of Attorney, Defendant is now Pro Per.

On August 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant discovery motion.

Legal Standard

RFAs are different from other civil discovery tools such as depositions, interrogatories, and requests for documents because while most of the other discovery procedure primarily assist counsel prepare for trial, RFAs are aimed at “setting at rest a triable issue so that it will not have to be tried.” (St. Mary v. Superior Ct. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 774, 775, quoting Cembrook v. Superior Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429.)

C.C.P. section 2033.280 then provides that if a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

(a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.

(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

(b) 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 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

(c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission 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. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.

Discussion

According to the Plaintiff, on June 22, 2022, Plaintiff propounded to Defendant’s prior counsel, via mail and electronic mail, the relevant discovery. No responses were received by the July 23, 2022 due date, even though Defendant’s prior counsel confirmed that they had provided the Discovery requests to their client/Defendant.

Although Plaintiff is correct in that it was not required to meet and confer effort to resolve the matter informally before filing the motion when no responses have been provided, the court finds its troubling that the discovery was propounded upon Defendant the day before he filed a Substitution of Attorney. Yet, Plaintiff made no attempt thereafter to verify whether the client himself had an opportunity to review the discovery. While a pro-per litigant is treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys, it is common practice—as this court has consistently seen—that the proponent at the very least inquires at least one time as to the delayed response rather than immediately filing a motion. (See, e.g., Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-47.) 

Based on the foregoing, the court is inclined to deny the motion.

Conclusion

Therefore, the ruling be determined at the conclusion of the hearing.