Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22STCV13792, Date: 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13792    Hearing Date: February 16, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            BACKGROUND

On February 27, 2019, plaintiff Rosevianney C. Ogumsi (“Plaintiff”) filed this medical malpractice action. 

On September 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against defendants Richard Dale Gentile, D.D.S., Heydar Hamid Shahrokh, D.D.S. (“Shahrokh”), an individual, and Heydar Shahrock, D.D.S., Inc., dba Comfort Dental Center (“Comfort Dental Center”), asserting causes of action for (1) professional negligence (dental malpractice), (2) intentional in infliction of emotional distress, (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (4) unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq), and (5) defamation.  Trial is not yet scheduled. 

On October 10, 2022, defendants Shahrokh and Comfort Dental Center filed the instant motions to (1) deem the matters in their Requests for Admissions, Set One, admitted, and (2) impose monetary sanctions of $4,670 ($2,335 per motion) against Plaintiff and her attorney of record, Chima Anyanwu Esq.

 On February 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed her oppositions to both motions, informing the Court that on November 14, 2022, she served her responses to the Requests for Admissions, Set One.

On February 8, 2023, the defendants filed their replies to the oppositions.  The replies are identical and in the form of defense counsel’s (Ted D. Conley) declaration. 

II.          DISCUSSION

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), if a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, 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, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).” 

Here, the parties do not dispute that Plaintiff failed to serve a timely response. 

The Court is required to grant a motion to deem requests for admission admitted, “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) [emphasis added].)

Here, defendants (through their counsel’s declaration filed in reply) imply that Plaintiff’s untimely response was not in substantial compliance with the relevant statute because (1) each defendant served their own set of Requests for Admissions, Set One, but (2) Plaintiff served only one verified response with the caption “Heydar Shahrokh, D.D.S; Heydar Shahrok, D.D.S., Inc. dba Comfort Dental Center.” 

“‘Substantial compliance, as the phrase is used in the decisions, means actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute.”  [Citation.]  Where there is compliance as to all matters of substance technical deviations are not to be given the stature of noncompliance.  [Citation.]  Substance prevails over form.’  [Citations.]”  (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 779 [emphasis added].)

Here, the relevant statute required “[e]ach answer in a response to requests for admission … [to] be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220, subd. (a).)  Specifically, an answer shall “[a]dmit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true…,” “[d]eny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue,” or “[s]pecify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220, subd. (b).)

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s response to the requests for admissions were in substantial compliance to the statute above for the following reasons.  First, both requests for admissions asked the same questions.  (Motions, Conley Decl., Exhibit A – copies of the requests for admissions.)  Second, Plaintiff mentioned both defendants in her verified response.  (Replies, Conley Decl., Exhibit D – copies of Plaintiff’s verified response to the requests for admissions.)  Third, Plaintiff denied each request, an appropriate response according to the statute above.  Therefore, the fact that Plaintiff placed her responses in one document is only a technical deviation.

Accordingly, the Court denies the defendants’ requests to deem admitted the matters specified in their requests for admissions.

Nevertheless, “[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. § 2033.220, subd. (c).) 

Here, Plaintiff necessitated this motion because she failed to serve her responses to the requests for admissions on time.  Therefore, imposition of monetary sanctions is required.

The Court finds the requested amount of monetary sanctions, $4,670 ($2,335 per motion), excessive.  As Plaintiff argues in her opposition, the motions are nearly identical. 

Accordingly, the Court awards monetary sanctions against Plaintiff, but in the reduced amount of $1,520 total ($760 per motion, consisting of $60 filing fees plus two (2) hours of defense counsel’s time at his $350 per hour billing rate).

III.        CONCLUSION

          The Motion to Deem Matters Admitted in Defendant Heydar Hamid Shahrokh, D.D.S.’s Request for Admissions, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions and Motion to Deem Matters Admitted in Defendant Heydar Hamid Shahrokh, D.D.S., Inc., dba Comfort Dental Center’s Request for Admissions, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions are DENIED and GRANTED IN PART.

          The Court DENIES the defendants’ requests to deem admitted the matters specified in their requests for admissions as moot.

          The Court GRANTS the defendants’ requests for monetary sanctions against plaintiff, but in the reduced amount of $760 per motion ($1,520 total).

          Plaintiff is ordered to pay defendant Heydar Hamid Shahrokh, D.D.S. sanctions of $760.

          Plaintiff is ordered to pay defendant Heydar Shahrock, D.D.S., Inc., dba Comfort Dental Center sanctions of $760.  

Moving parties to give notice. 

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at alhdept3@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.