Case Number: BC613552 Hearing Date: August 08, 2018 Dept: 4

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Christopher Turpin

RESPONDING PARTY: None

Motion for Deem Request for Admissions, Set One, Deemed Admitted

The court considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

On March 16, 2016, plaintiff Jennifer Pacelli filed a complaint against defendants Nic’s Beverly Hills and Christopher Turpin for negligence, assault, and battery based on a March 6, 2015 incident where plaintiff was allegedly punched in the neck.

On February 21, 2018, defendant Christopher Turpin (self-represented) filed a cross-complaint against Jennifer Pacelli.

On July 10, 2018, Turpin filed a Notice of Association, stating that Hoan N. Nguyen, Esq. is representing him.

Trial is set for August 21, 2018.

LEGAL STANDARD

Request for Admissions

Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(b), a 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). “Failure to timely respond to RFA does not result in automatic admissions. Rather, the propounder of the RFA must ‘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 § 2023.010 et seq.” Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, ¶ 8:1370, citing CCP § 2033.280(b). The court “shall” grant the motion to deem RFA 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.” CCP § 2033.280(c).

DISCUSSION

Defendant Turpin requests that the court deem the truth of the matters in the Request for Admissions. Defendant contends that he served plaintiff on February 20, 2018. Plaintiff provided unverified responses on March 27, 2018. On April 3, 2018 and June 1, 2018, defendant served plaintiff’s counsel with a meet and confer letter regarding plaintiff’s insufficient discovery responses and failure to provide verifications. To date, defendant has not received verified responses.

Unverified responses are equivalent to “no responses at all.” Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.

Because defendant properly served the discovery requests and plaintiff failed to serve verified responses, the motion is GRANTED.

Under CCP § 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Under CCP § 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

Under CCP §2033.280(b), a monetary sanction shall be ordered in favor of the moving party and against the non-responding party, unless it finds that the non-responding party acted with substantial justification.

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

Defendant requests sanctions against plaintiff and her attorney of record, Keosian Berbernian LLP, in the amount of $3,260.00. The court finds that $560 ($250/hr. x 2 hrs. plus $60 filing fee) is a reasonable amount to be imposed against plaintiff and her attorney of record.

The court ORDERS:

The court deems admitted the truth of the matters in defendant’s Request for Admissions, Set One.

The court orders plaintiff Jennifer Pacelli and her counsel of record, Keosian Berbernian LLP, to pay to defendant a monetary sanction in the amount of $560.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 8, 2018

____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court