Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV44623, Date: 2022-08-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44623    Hearing Date: August 1, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On November 20, 2020, plaintiffs Alma Lorena Castro (“Castro”) and Maria De La Rosa (“De La Rosa”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendant Bodega Latina Corporation (“Defendant”) arising from two slip and fall incidents that occurred on July 18, 2020.  Castro and her niece, De La Rosa, allege that they slipped and fell due to water on the floor inside Defendant’s grocery store. 

On June 28, 2021, Defendant served a set of requests for admission on each plaintiff and now moves to have the truth of the matters within each set deemed admitted.   

On July 20, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a declaration stating that the motion was moot because responses were served on June 16, 2022.  Defendant maintains its request for sanctions in its reply brief. 

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).)

Defense counsel declares the reasonable value of the attorneys’ fees expended in preparing this motion and presenting it to the court is approximately $1,100 at defense counsel’s hourly rate of $150.  Counsel declares that it took 1.5 hours to prepare this motion and anticipated that it would take 2.5 hours to review the opposition and draft the reply, with another 3 hours to prepare for, travel to, and attend the hearing on this motion. 

Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiffs and counsel is improperly noticed.  Defendant’s notice of motion only seeks sanctions against “Plaintiff” without specifying which of the two plaintiffs sanctions are being sought against.  Although sanctions are mandatory against a party who fails to timely serve responses to requests for admission, requests for sanctions must still “identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.) 

Also, the amount of sanctions sought is excessive.  It is unreasonable to take 1.5 hours to prepare draft a motion that does not present complex legal issues.  Similarly, it is unreasonable to take 2.5 hours to review a short opposition brief and draft an equally short reply.  Furthermore, given the uncomplicated subject of this motion and the availability of remote appearances, preparing for, traveling to, and attending this hearing should not take 3 hours.  Last, the Court notes that Defendant should have filed two separate motions since two sets of discovery were at issue. 

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion is DENIED and Defendant’s request for sanctions 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.