Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV37054, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37054    Hearing Date: July 28, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On October 7, 2021, plaintiffs Ernesto Chillin, Olga Hernandez, and Olga Coyt (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendant Jose Valtierra (“Defendant”) arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on or about October 26, 2019.  On February 25, 2022, Defendant served a set of Request for Admission (Set No. 1) on each plaintiff.  After no responses were received, on April 27, 2022, Defendant filed three motions to have the matters within the requests for admission deemed admitted. 

Where a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants them 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.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).)  The court shall grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “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 to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

On July 15, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a joint opposition arguing that the motions to deem admitted should be denied because verified responses were served on April 27, 2022.  Defendant argues that the responses are not “substantially compliant” because the responses include objections.  The Court finds that the responses are in substantial compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure because the objections are asserted as part of Plaintiffs’ preliminary statement and are not asserted in response to any individual request for admission. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motions to deem admitted are DENIED.  The denial of these motions does not foreclose the possibility of a motion to compel further response in order to strike any improper objections.  Prior to filing any motion to compel further, the parties are ordered to meet and confer and attend an informal discovery conference as outlined in the Seventh Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts Effective May 16, 2022 (Revised 5/4/2022).

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).)  However, Defendants’ notices of motion did not include any request for sanctions, which are obtainable only “after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing.”  (Code Civ. Proc. , § 2023.030.)  Accordingly, no sanctions shall be granted in connection with this motion.  The Court notes, further, that in, any event, defense counsel did not provide a declaration stating the amount of time spent on these motions and their hourly rate. 

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.