Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 19STCV35811, Date: 2022-07-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV35811    Hearing Date: July 29, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff Marirose Agpawa (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Gabriele Correa, Jacob Correa, and Michele Cordova (“Cordova”) asserting causes of action for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, premises liability, battery, conversion, and fraud. Plaintiff alleges that on December 15, 2016, she entered into a lease with Cordova to rent a room at the premises located at 4829 Denny Avenue in North Hollywood, California. Plaintiff alleges that on October 4, 2017, Cordova’s son, Jacob Correa, unlawfully entered the premises in violation of a restraining order and was subsequently escorted away by the police. On October 5, 2017, Jacob Correa returned to the premises to retrieve his backpack, which he left behind the day before. Plaintiff confronted Jacob Correa believing that he had stolen some of her personal belongings and placed them inside his backpack. Plaintiff grabbed his backpack and screamed at Cordova to call the police. Jacob Correa then pushed Plaintiff, causing her to fall and strike her head on a wood table.

On April 18, 2022, the Court granted the motions brought by Cordova and Gabriele Correa (collectively, “Defendants”) for orders: (1) compelling Plaintiff’s responses to their Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission which were served on July 7, 2021, and (2) deeming admitted the matters within their Requests for Admission (“RFAs”). 

On April 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion for reconsideration under section 1008(b) or, in the alternative, to set aside the orders on Defendants’ discovery motions under section 473(b).  Plaintiff’s counsel argues that he failed to oppose the motions and appear at the hearing because of a calendaring error.  The Court issued a tentative order on June 23, 2022, denying the motion.  Instead of adopting the tentative ruling, the Court continued the hearing to July 19, 2022, for the parties to provide supplemental briefing.  Plaintiff was to file supplemental briefing by July 5, 2022, and Defendant was to file a responsive brief by July 14, 2022.  Although Defendant filed a brief, Plaintiff did not. 

On July 19, 2022, upon ex parte application by Plaintiff, the Court continued the hearing to July 29, 2022, and extended the deadlines for Plaintiff and Defendant to file supplemental briefing to July 22, 2022, and July 27, 2022, respectively.  On July 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief. 

Relief from deemed admissions is available through Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(a) if a party serves substantially compliant responses and the failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  Plaintiff explains that responses to the RFAs were served on June 3, 2022, and attaches a copy to counsel’s declaration.  Plaintiff’s counsel also explains that he underwent surgery and experienced a slew of health problems which meant that he inadvertently failed to calendar the deadline to serve responses to Defendant’s RFAs.  This is sufficient for the Court to relieve Plaintiff from the order demining the RFAs admitted. 

However, the Court does not find sufficient evidence to revoke the sanctions imposed.  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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  It is undisputed that Plaintiff’s responses to the RFAs were untimely.  Therefore, sanctions imposed for Plaintiff’s failure to serve timely responses to the RFAs are mandatory.

As for the sanctions imposed for Plaintiff’s failure to provide responses to the special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for production of documents, CRC 3.1348 allows the Court to impose monetary sanctions in favor of the party who filed a motion to compel discovery even if the discovery was provided after the motion was filed.  Defendant served his discovery requests on July 7, 2021, multiple extensions were granted, and despite Plaintiff’s continuous assurances, responses were not served until nearly a year later in June 2022. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff is relieved from the deemed admissions.  Plaintiff’s request for the sanctions to be revoked is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.