On 21 March 2014, the following motions of Plaintiff were argued and submitted:
(1) Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and request for Monetary Sanctions
(2) Motion to Deem Admitted Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One (“RFA”) and for request for Monetary Sanctions
Defendant did not file formal opposition to either motion.
I. Background
On 26 July 2013, Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Rohit Dutta, et al., (“Defendants”) for collection of outstanding legal fees. Plaintiff allegedly provided legal services to Defendant between 11 October 2011 and 20 June 2012 pursuant to a fee agreement. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay over $16,068.58 of legal fees.
II. Discovery Dispute
On 25 October 2013, Plaintiff served Defendant by mail with Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Admissions (Set One).
Plaintiff alleges the following:
Responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests were due by 29 November 2013 and Plaintiff received no response or request for extension by that date.
On 17 December 2013, Defendant stated at a Case Management Conference that responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and RFA would be delivered by 24 December 2013.
As of 07 January 2014, the date these motions were filed, Plaintiff has received no further contact from Defendant regarding the outstanding discovery requests.

III. Discussion
A. Motion to Compel Responses to Set One of Plaintiff’s Interrogatories
Interrogatories may be propounded upon an adverse party in an attempt to seek relevant information. (Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010.) Absent an extension granted by counsel, a party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days. (Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.260.) The deadline is extended for requests served by mail, fax or overnight delivery. (Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1013, 2016.050 (service by mail within the state of California extends the time for response by five calendar days).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290(b).) A party that fails to successfully defend a motion to compel responses may not raise any objections, including privilege, when responding to these interrogatories. (Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290(b).) An objection can constitute a response. (See Korea Data Sys. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (4th Dist. 1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516.)
While Plaintiff cites Code of Civil Procedure § 2030(k), which is no longer valid, in support of this motion, the motion is proper under Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290(b). Plaintiff included a copy of the proof of service confirming the Defendant was served with Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One) on 25 October 2013. Plaintiff alleges that no response to the interrogatories has been received. As the deadline for the Defendant’s response has elapsed and there is no indication that the parties agreed to an extension, an order compelling response to the interrogatories is appropriate.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Set One of Plaintiff’s Interrogatories is GRANTED.
B. Motion to Deem Admitted to Set One of Plaintiff’s RFA
A party served with a request for admission must serve its response within 30 days. (Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.250(a).) The deadline is extended for requests served by mail, fax or overnight delivery. (Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1013, 2016.050 (service by mail within the state of California extends the time for response by five calendar days).)
Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280 states:
“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
(a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.
(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
(b) The requesting 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).
(c) The court shall make this order, 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.”
The motion should include a notice of the motion and motion, a memorandum of points and authorities, a supporting declaration, a copy of the requests for admission and proof of service, and the proposed order. (CEB, California Civil Discovery Practice, § 9.76.) The motion should state that the requests were properly served and identify the date they were served. (Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 2033.280(c), 2033.070.) The motion should state the date by which the responding part was to respond and the reason any response received was insufficient. (Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 2033.250, 2033.280.)
Plaintiff included a copy of the requests for admission and proof of service stating that the requests were served on Defendant by mail on 25 October 2013. Plaintiff alleges that no response to the requests for admission has been received. As the deadline for the Defendant’s response has elapsed and there is no indication that the parties agreed to an extension, an order deeming matters in the RFA admitted is appropriate.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Matters in Set One of Plaintiff’s RFA to be Deemed Admitted is GRANTED.
C. Plaintiff’s Requests for Monetary Sanctions
Code of Civil Procedure, § 2023.040 states:
“A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.”
CEB, California Civil Discovery Practice, §15.46a: “Notice of Motion and Motion” states:
“As a practical matter, the motion and notice of motion are usually combined into one document . . . . The motion, an application to a court to make an order (CCP §1003), must contain all of the following (Cal Rules of Ct 3.1112(d)):
• Identity of the party or parties bringing the motion;
• Name of the parties to whom the motion is addressed; and
• Brief statement of the basis for the motion and the relief sought, including whether the moving party requests sanctions, against whom the sanction is sought and the type of sanctions (CCP §2023.040).
The notice of motion must contain all of the following information (CCP §1010):
• Date, time, and place of the hearing;
• Grounds on which the motion is being made, including whether the moving party requests sanctions, against whom the sanction is sought, and the type of sanctions (CCP §2023.040); and
• Papers and other items supporting the motion.
In addition, the notice of motion must state ‘in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order. Cal Rules of Ct 3.1110(a).
All relief sought by the motion, including whether the moving party requests sanctions, should be stated in the notice of motion and, if possible, identified in the title of the motion, not just argued in the supporting memorandum.”
1. Request for Monetary Sanctions for Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories
In support of the request for monetary sanctions regarding the motion to compel Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, Plaintiff cites Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030(k) and 2031[9](l), which have been repealed. Assuming Plaintiff intended to cite Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.290(c), which requires this Court to “impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories,” monetary sanctions are not appropriate as Plaintiff never opposed this motion.
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions for Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories is therefore DENIED.
2. Request for Monetary Sanctions for Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Admitted Plaintiff’s RFA, Set One
When a party’s response is untimely and the discovering party makes a motion to deem the requests admitted, “[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 [the] motion.” (Code of Civil Procedure, § 2033.280(c); see also Appleton v. Superior Court (3d Dist. 1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-36.)
Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,020.00 from the Defendant for costs and attorney fees incurred in the motion, consisting of $60.00 for the filing fee, two hours of attorney fees in preparing and filing the motion (billed at a rate of $240.00 per hour), and anticipates an additional two hours to prepare for and attend the hearing. The request for attorney’s fees incurred in preparing and filing the motion and for the filing fee is code-compliant. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 2023.040.)
However, as sanctions are only awarded for expenses actually incurred, the request for attorney’s fees regarding preparation and attendance at the motion hearing is not code-compliant. (See Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4th 1548, 1551.)
The rate and time for the attorney’s fees actually incurred are reasonable. Therefore, the Court will award a total of $540.00 for two hours of attorney’s fees and the requested filing fee.
IV. Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Set One of Plaintiff’s Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant shall respond to the discovery without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions regarding this motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Matters in Set One of Plaintiff’s RFA to be Deemed Admitted is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions regarding this motion is GRANTED IN PART as follows: Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff’s counsel the sum of $540.00 within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.