Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 24NNCV04712, Date: 2025-04-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24NNCV04712, Date: 2025-04-15 Tentative Ruling

On February 27, 2025, plaintiff Aleina Cummings (“Plaintiff”) filed this motion to have Requests for Admission, Set One, served upon defendant Erwin Pilipina (“Defendant”) on November 4, 2024, deemed admitted. Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $2,861.65.

On April 1, 2025, Defendant filed an opposition brief explaining that Defendant experienced a major stroke, could not communicate, and was living in a rehabilitation hospital. Defendant submits a declaration from Dr. Mark Gobrial, who avers that he is a medical doctor who is treating Defendant and states that Defendant is not able to provide testimony due to cognitive decline. (Auchard Decl., Ex. A.) Due to Defendant’s medical condition, he has not been able to provide verified responses.

Plaintiff filed a reply brief on April 7, 2025, in which she argues that the motion should be granted because Defendant has failed to serve verified responses to her Requests for Admission before the hearing and unverified discovery responses are tantamount to no response.

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 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).)

An unverified discovery response is treated as no response. (Steele v. Totah (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 545, 549; Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636-637.) Since Defendant concedes that his responses were overdue and that verifications cannot be obtained, substantially compliant responses have not been served before the hearing. Moreover, there is no evidence that Defendant has become the subject of a conservatorship or a guardianship ad litem or that any consideration was given to seeking a protective order or some other form of appropriate delay to address the litigation problem posed by Defendant’s incapacity. Responding with unsigned and unverified responses is not the solution to the problem.

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).)

Sanctions are mandatory where a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admission. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the reduced amount of $411.65, consisting of 1 hour at counsel’s hourly rate of $350 and a filing fee of $61.65, to be paid within 20 days of the date of this Order.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

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.