Case Number: BC695741 Hearing Date: May 24, 2019 Dept: 4B

On February 23, 2018, Plaintiffs Adrian Johnson Adair and Katelyn Adair (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Ideal Transit, Inc. (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence arising out of a February 23, 2016 automobile collision. On July 20, 2018, Defendant served Requests for Admission, Set One on Plaintiffs. (Declaration of Mark V. Santa Romana, ¶ 2.) No responses were received. Defendant moves for an order deeming the requests for admission admitted. (Romana Decl., ¶ 3.)

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).)

Plaintiffs state that they served responses on May 7, 2019, and that this motion is moot. Plaintiffs contend that the responses are in substantial compliance and this motion should be denied. (Declaration of Allan Dollison, ¶ 12.) In Reply, Defendant argues the responses are unverified and therefore are not in substantial compliance. (Reply Romana Decl., ¶ 2.)

It is well-settled that “unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1888) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636; Zorro Inv. Co. v. Great Pacific Securities Corp. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 907, 914.) Therefore, unsworn responses cannot be in substantial compliance, and it would exceed the court’s discretion to deny this motion. (Allen-Pacific, Ltd. V. Superior Court (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1551, disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983.) As it does not appear Plaintiffs served verified responses before this hearing, the Motion to deem admitted is GRANTED.

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).) Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $660.00 for two hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate of $300.00 and the $60.00 filing fee, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.