Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 19STCV00752, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV00752    Hearing Date: December 15, 2022    Dept: W

ROSHAWN HELMANDI, ET AL. v. FLAT CREEK TRANSPORTATION LLC., et al.

(1)  Motion to BE RELIEVED FROM DEEMED ADMISSIONS

       (2) Motion To Compel Deposition

       (3) Motion for sanctions

Date of Hearing:               December 15, 2022                          Trial Date:           None set

Department:                      W                                                            Case No.:             19STCV00752

Moving Party:                    (1) Plaintiffs Roshawn Helmandi

                                                (2-3) Plaintiffs Roshawn Helmandi and Haron Helmandi

Responding Party:           (1-3) Defendant Flat Creek Transportation, LLC  and Dwayne Deon Mahone

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ truck (the “Vehicle”) collided with Plaintiffs’ sedan, which caused Plaintiffs’ sedan to run onto a sidewalk, through an unoccupied bus stop, and into a cinderblock wall.

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on January 8, 2019, asserting causes of action for personal injuries and property damage.

On January 14, 2022, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion to compel inspection of the Vehicle.  The Court notes that Defendants’ counsel represented that they were no longer in possession or control of the Vehicle.  Based on that representation, the Court ordered Defendants to submit a declaration, by a person with sufficient knowledge, as to what happened with the vehicle (i.e.,  whether it was sold, transferred, or destroyed).  On February 22, 2022, the Court held an IDC regarding the declaration provided by Defendants, and ordered Defendants to provide a further declaration regarding the whereabouts of the Vehicle, as well as any documents relating to its sale, transfer or current owner, if known.

Plaintiff Roshawn Helmandi’s admissions were deemed admitted on July 14, 2022, after an attorney specially appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs’ counsel and requested a continuance, which was denied by this Court and sanctions were imposed on Plaintiff.  Roshawn seeks to be relieved from his admissions deemed because of his failure to respond, and for the court to permit him to serve new or amended responses to Defendant Flat Creek Transportation LLC’s (“FCT”) Request for Admissions, Set number One.

In addition, Plaintiffs move the Court to compel the deposition of Defendant Dwayne Deon Mahone (“Mahone”).

Furthermore, Plaintiffs move the Court to sanction Defendants for their failure to produce the Vehicle.

[Tentative] Ruling

1.      Plaintiff Roshawn’s Motion to be Relieved from Deemed Admissions is GRANTED.

2.      Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Dwayne Deon Mahone  is DENIED.  Plaintiffs, and their attorney of record, are ordered to pay $800 in sanctions.

3.      Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.  Plaintiffs, and their attorney of record, are ordered to pay $600 in sanctions.

ANALYSIS

Motion to BE RELIEVED FROM DEEMED ADMISSIONS

Plaintiff Roshawn Helmandi moves for relief from the order deeming Requests for Admission admitted against him pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300, which states in relevant part: “[t]he court may permit withdrawal or amendment of an admission only if it determines that the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and that the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits.”  (CCP § 2033.300(b), emphasis added.)   This includes “deemed admissions” ordered by the court under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(b), as well as admissions expressly made by a party.  (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 979.)  The trial court’s discretion in ruling on a motion to withdraw or amend an admission is not unlimited, but must be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law and in a manner that serves the interests of justice.  (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420.)

Plaintiff’s Counsel Randall M. Awad declares that but for his inadvertence, mistake, and justifiable neglect, the response to Defendant’s Request for Admissions would have been responded to in a timely manner.  (Awad Decl.¶ 3.)  Counsel Awad further states that the private matter that physically prevented Roshawn’s responses was made known to the court in an in-camera manner.   (Awad Decl. ¶ 3.)  Further, Plaintiff states that there is little likelihood of prejudice to the Defendant in granting Plaintiff the requested relief, in light of the fact that sanctions to Defendant were paid in a timely manner.  (Pl.’s Mot. p. 5.)  This motion was previously set be heard in September.  Due to unspecified personal or family health matters, Mr. Awad was unable to appear and had other attorneys appear on his behalf to have the matters continued to December 15.  Recently, Mr. Awad has filed a further declaration, explaining that he never received the original RFA by email, and providing a screen shot of his server indicating that no such email was received.  He further explained that due to health and family issues, he did not file an opposition to defendants’ motion to have the admissions deemed admitted.  He has served code compliant responses to the RFA. 

Defendants state in opposition that Plaintiffs’ motion is devoid of any explanation or summation of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (Defs.’ Opp. p. 5.)  Further, Defendants state that Plaintiffs’ motion is also devoid of any explanation as to whether the relief requested would or would not be prejudicial to Defendants.  (Defs.’ Opp. p. 5.)

The court finds that plaintiff has presented satisfactory evidence to explain that his office did not receive the original emailed RFAs and that the follow up meet and confer letter from defense counsel confused him, as it referred only to RFAs (Set Two), and not the responses which were then late related to RFAs (Set One).   Based on this confusion and family-related issues, plaintiff’s counsel did not understand that he owed responses to RFAs by June 4, and failed to oppose the motion to deem the requests for admission admitted.  As there is no pending trial date, the court finds that there is no prejudice to defendants (other than the obvious prejudice in every case where a party seeks relief under C.C.P. Section 2033.300(a).)  Further, the court finds that it would be unduly prejudicial to plaintiffs’ themselves to  bind them to these admissions through the fault of their counsel. 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

Plaintiffs move the Court to compel the deposition of Mahone.

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. The person deposed may be a natural person, an organization such as a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental agency.”  (CCP § 2025.010.)¿ 

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, . . . the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony . . . .”¿ CCP § 2025.450(a).¿ “. . . . (1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible¿thing described in the deposition notice. [and] (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”¿ (CCP § 2025.450(b).) 

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiffs’ motion fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(b) because Plaintiffs failed to state in the declaration in support of the Motion that they inquired as to Mahone’s non-appearance at the deposition on June 2, 2022.  (See Awad Decl.)  In addition, while Plaintiffs represent they met and conferred prior to filing the instant Motion, the declaration fails to include any attempt by Plaintiffs to resolve this matter informally.

Furthermore,  Mahone’s Opposition shows that this Motion was unnecessary and could have been avoided. Defendants’ counsel represents that Mahone attempted to appear for his deposition remotely, but when he attempted to join the remote deposition, he was unable to join.  (White Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.)  Defendants’ counsel emailed Plaintiffs’ counsel (and his assistant) regarding the inability to join, but were unable to gain assistance.  (Id. at  ¶¶ 4-6.)  The deposition of FCT’s PMK was scheduled the following day, and Defendants’ counsel had the same issue that was presented at Mahone’s deposition, but, in light of the issues at Mahone’s deposition, Defendants’ counsel had requested the court reporter’s contact information (the night before) in case similar issues were presented.  (Id. at ¶¶ 7-10.)  After communicating with Plaintiffs’ counsel, Defendant’s counsel was able to resolve the issue and join the deposition of FCT’s PMK.  (Id.)  On June 8, Defendants’ counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel and provided alternative dates for Mahone’s deposition, but Plaintiff’s counsel failed to respond.  (Id. at ¶ 12-13.)  Here, there is no evidence that Mahone’s was acting in bad faith when he was unable to join the deposition remotely.  Defendants also provide evidence that it offered Plaintiffs alternative dates for the deposition, but Plaintiffs failed to respond to Defendants’ attempt to reschedule the deposition.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Deposition of Mahone is DENIED.  In addition, Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

Furthermore, Defendants’ request and the Court finds that sanctions against Plaintiffs, and their attorney of record, are appropriate because Plaintiffs filed an unnecessary Motion, and forced Plaintiffs to expend attorney time to prepare an Opposition for a needless Motion.  The Court finds that sanctions in the amount of $800 (representing 4 hours of work at a rate of $200) are appropriate.  (White Decl., ¶¶ 16-17.) 

Motion for sanctions

Plaintiffs move the Court for sanctions against Defendants.  Plaintiffs argue that Defendants should be sanctioned because of their failure to produce the Vehicle for inspection, and their failure to comply with the Court’s orders to provide Plaintiffs with the whereabout of the Vehicle.  Plaintiffs contend that the third declaration that Defendants provided on March 8, 2022 (the “Declaration”) regarding the whereabout of the Vehicle (and related documents) was insufficient and evasive.[1]

A review of the Declaration reveals that Defendants hired a legal service to inquire as to the sale of the Vehicle.  (Kwon Decl., ¶ 3.)  That service informed Defendant on March 4, 2022, that the Vehicle was in Georgia and identified that the current owner was Top lease, LLC, an affiliate of Jones Transportation.  (Id. at ¶ 3-5.)  Defendants also provided the Carfax Report, which reflected that the vehicle was sold in Georgia in 2019, and that it was registered twice.  (Id., Exh. A.)  In addition, Defendants provided the “State of Georgia Apportioned Cab Card” for the Vehicle which shows that Top Lease was the owner, and also had the address for Top Lease.  (Id., Exh. B.)

Here, Defendants have complied with their discovery obligation, and have provided all of the information that is available to them as to the Vehicle.  While Plaintiffs contend that the Declaration is insufficient and evasive, Plaintiffs fail to state what information Defendants failed to provide, or what information they seek.  In addition, to the extent that Plaintiffs want to inspect the Vehicle, they may issue a subpoena to Top Lease to inspect the Vehicle.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. 

Furthermore, Defendants’ request and the Court finds that sanctions against Plaintiffs, and their attorney of record, are appropriate because Plaintiffs filed an unnecessary Motion, as they fail to explain how the Declaration is insufficient and evasive.  Plaintiffs forced Defendants to expend attorney time to prepare an Opposition for a needless Motion.  The Court finds that sanctions in the amount of $600 (representing 3 hours of work at a rate of $200) are appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Roshawn’s Motion to be Relieved from Deemed Admissions is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Dwayne Deon Mahone  is DENIED.  Plaintiffs, and their attorney of record, are ordered to pay $800 in sanctions.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.  Plaintiffs, and their attorney of record, are ordered to pay $600 in sanctions.