Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 21VECV01196, Date: 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21VECV01196 Hearing Date: December 13, 2022 Dept: W
FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC v. SYEID
SHANDALOO
plaintiff’s motion for order to have
admissions deemed admitted and request for monetary sanctions
Date of Hearing: December
13, 2022 Trial Date: March 27, 2023
Department: W Case No.: 21VECV01196
Moving Party: Plaintiff Motor Credit Company LLC
Responding Party: No opposition.
BACKGROUND
This is an action for breach of contract. Plaintiff Ford Motor
Credit Company LLC filed a complaint against Defendant Shandaloo on September
3, 2021. Plaintiff alleges on August 3, 2016, Defendant Shandaloo entered a
written Retail Installment Contract (“contract”) with Galpin Motors Inc. for a
Ford F-350. Plaintiff was assigned the contract for value. Defendant breached
the contract by failing to make the required timely payments.
Default was entered against Defendant on April 5, 2022. On July 6, 2022, the court granted
Defendant’s motion to set aside/vacate default.
[Tentative] Ruling
Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Have Admissions Deemed Admitted
and Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED.
discussion
Plaintiff Ford Motor Credit Company LLC moves the court for an
order to deem as admitted the truth of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s
Requests for Admissions served on Defendant Syeid Shandaloo aka Saeid Shadanloo
on August 9, 2022. Plaintiff further seeks monetary sanctions against Defendant
in the amount of $810.00 for the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees
associated with the instant motion.
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. (CCP §2033.280(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. (CCP §2033.280(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.”
(CCP §2033.280(c); St. Mary v. Sup. Ct. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762,
777-78.)
On August 9, 2022, counsel served the first set of Requests for
Admissions on Defendant. (Chen Decl. ¶2, Exh. 1.) After receiving no response,
on October 27, 2022 Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant requesting that they
respond within 10 days or Plaintiff would seek sanctions. (Chen Decl. ¶3, Exh.
2.) To date, Plaintiff has not received a response to their request for
admissions, set one. (Chen Decl. ¶4.)
The court finds Defendant has failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s
properly served discovery request. The court therefore grants Plaintiff’s
Motion for Order to Have Admissions Deemed Admitted.
Sanctions
Where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for
admission, “[i]t 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.” (CCP §2033.280(c).)
Plaintiff seeks $810.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant. Plaintiff
seeks 3 hours for preparing the motion, 1 hour for attending the hearing, and 1
hour for travel time at counsel’s hourly rate of $150.00. Plaintiff also seeks
the $60 filing fee.
The court grants Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the
reduced amount of $360.00.