Case Number: BC639337 Hearing Date: March 13, 2018 Dept: 97

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 97

Angelina Quitoriano, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Andrea Salazar, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC639337

Hearing Date: March 13, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

defendant’S motions to Deem Requests Admitted

Defendant Andrea Salazar (“Defendant”) has filed a motion against Plaintiff Allen Quitoriano (“Plaintiff”) to deem the requests for admission admitted for failure to serve verified responses on Defendant. This matter was first set for hearing on February 13, 2018, but was continued to the current hearing date of March 13, 2018.

On October 12, 2017, Defendant served on Plaintiff the requests for admission. Responses were due on November 11, 2017. On November 15, 2017, Plaintiff served unverified response to the Requests for Admission. Defense Counsel allowed Plaintiff a 30-day extension to serve verified responses. Defendant did not serve such responses. In the reply, filed February 26, 2018, Defendant states that she has still not received the verified responses.

In opposition, Plaintiff’s Counsel states that his clients had to make a trip to the Philippines because of a family emergency, and thus he has been delayed in obtaining a verification for the responses. Nothing in the Court’s filings shows that a verified response to the request for admissions has been served on the Defendant. Given the availability of postal mail, email, and facsimile transmissions, Plaintiff’s travel to the Philippines does not explain or justify their failure to provide verified responses.

Defendant moves under CCP §2033.280 to deem the request for admissions admitted. Where there has been no timely response to a request for admission under CCP § 2033.010, 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. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants that party 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 of 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 of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he has served a response to the request for admissions. Plaintiff’s Counsel states only that he has served unverified responses. However, “[u]nsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for an order deeming the RFA admitted must be granted pursuant to CCP §2033.280 unless Plaintiff demonstrates that Plaintiff served verified responses on Defendant before the hearing on this motion commences.

Defendant also requests sanctions against Plaintiff Allen Quitoriano and Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to respond in a timely manner a misuse of the discovery process. Sanctions have been sufficiently noticed against Plaintiff Allen Quitoriano and his attorney of record Jacob Emrani. However, given that Plaintiff’s counsel has been diligent in attempting to contact his clients in the Philippines to obtain verifications, the Court will impose sanctions only against Plaintiff and not against Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court grants sanctions for 3 hours to prepare the motion, the reply, and to appear at the hearing, at $175.00 per hour, plus one $60 filing fees, for a total of $585.00. Plaintiff Allen Quitoriano is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the total amount of $585.00 to Defendant, by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order.

DATED: March 13, 2018 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court