Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 19VECV00204, Date: 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 19VECV00204    Hearing Date: October 5, 2022    Dept: W

CYNTHIA SHELTON v. VERONICA ALCARAZ, et al.

 

MOTION TO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS in the REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

 

Date of Hearing:          October 5, 2022                      Trial Date:       November 29, 20222

Department:               W                                             Case No.:         19VECV00204

 

Moving Party:             Defendants Aaron H. Lewis and Maurice A. Lewis

Responding Party:       Plaintiff Cynthia Shelton

 

BACKGROUND

 

This is an action for tortious interference and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

 

On February 11, 2019, Plaintiff Cynthia Shelton (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint against defendants Veronica Alcaraz (“Alcaraz”), Maurice A. Lewis (“Maurice”),[1] Aaron H. Lewis (“Aaron”), and Does 1 to 25 asserting two causes of action: (1) interference with contract and prospective advantage against all defendants; and (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress against Aaron, Maurice, and Does 21 to 25.

 

Plaintiff alleges defendants, collusively and without Plaintiff’s knowledge in order to deprive Plaintiff of her owed commission, entered into a written contract of sale in which Alcaraz agreed to purchase from Maurice real property located at 5762 Valerie Avenue, Woodland Hills, California 91367 (the “Property”). (Complaint ¶ 8.) As a direct result of defendants’ conspiratorial and unlawful conduct, Plaintiff alleges she has suffered extreme emotional distress and a direct loss of no less than $63,000 due as commissions for her efforts in selling the Property. (Id. ¶ 12.)

 

On October 21, 2021, the Court granted Alcaraz’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

 

On January 10, 2022, the Court granted judgment in Alcaraz’s favor and dismissed her from the action.

 

Maurice and Aaron (collectively “Defendants”) now move for an order deeming all Requests for Admission, Set One (“RFA”) admitted and unspecified monetary sanctions.

 

Plaintiff opposes.

 

Defendants did not file a reply. It was due on September 28, 2022, i.e., five court days before the scheduled hearing date of October 5, 2022. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

 

[Tentative] Ruling

 

Defendants’ Motion for an Order that the Truth of all Matters Specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One be Deemed Admitted is DENIED.

 

analysis

 

Defendants move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in the RFA served Plaintiff be deemed admitted. Defendants make the motion on the grounds that Plaintiff did not timely serve the response within the statutory period.

 

Where there has been no timely response to a request for admission under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.010, the propounding party may move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in the requests and the genuineness of any documents be deemed admitted, as well as a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants that party relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Id., subds. (a)(1)-(2).) The court shall grant the motion “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 . . . in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Id., subd. (c); St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 777-778.)

 

It is undisputed that Plaintiff did not serve her responses to the RFA within the statutory deadline, apparently because of an error by her attorney’s law office. (Roberts Decl. ¶ 2.) However, it is also undisputed that Defendants actually received a response to the RFAs, though late by a few days, and this response did not contain any specific objections. (Wallace Decl. Ex. 3-4.) Therefore, the Court denies Defendants’ motion. Plaintiff has served the sought discovery responses sought by Defendants and Defendants fail to identify any other deficiency with the responses.

 

The Court denies Defendants’ unspecified request for monetary sanctions. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

Defendants’ Motion for an Order that the Truth of all Matters Specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One be Deemed Admitted is DENIED.


[