Lawzilla Additional Information: The motion was taken off calendar and no final order was made

Case Number: 19STCV09798 Hearing Date: March 02, 2020 Dept: 28

Motions to Deem Matters in Request for Admissions (Set One) as True

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On March 21, 2019, Plaintiffs Rafael Cruz and Consuelo Herrera (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant Juanita Lomeli (“Defendant”) alleging motor vehicle negligence for an incident that occurred on October 12, 2017.

On June 13, 2019, Plaintiffs served Defendant, inter alia, two Request for Admissions (Set One) – one request per Plaintiff.

On December 12, 2019, Plaintiffs filed two requests to deem matters within Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Defendant pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.280, subdivision (b).

Trial is set for September 17, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Plaintiffs asks the Court to deem the matters in the two Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Defendant for her failure to provide timely responses.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (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).” The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (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.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

On June 13, 2019, Plaintiffs served Defendant, inter alia, two Request for Admissions (Set One) – one request per Plaintiff. (Gravich Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. A.) Plaintiffs have not received responses as of the time that Robert Gravich signed the declaration submitted in support of this motion on December 12, 2019. (Gravich Decl., ¶ 5.)

In opposition to Plaintiff Consuelo Herrera’s motion, Defendant argues that responses to Plaintiff Consuelo Herrera’s Request for Admission (Set One) were served on December 18, 2019. (Boyd Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. A.) Defendant contends that since responses were served prior to the instant hearing date, Plaintiff Consuelo Herrera’s motion is therefore moot. The Court finds the motion is moot based on the fact that Defendant served responses to Plaintiff Consuelo Herrera’s Request for Admission, Set One, prior to the instant hearing date.

Defendant did not file an opposition to Plaintiff Rafael Cruz’s motion. Additionally, the records are devoid of proof Defendant served responses to Plaintiff Rafael Cruz’s Request for Admission (Set One). Accordingly, The Court finds Plaintiff Rafael Cruz’s motion is properly granted. The written discovery request was properly served and there was no timely response.

Plaintiffs request sanctions in the sum of $6,120.00 in connection with the two instant motions. Sanctions are mandatory. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).) However, the Court finds the requests excessive given the two motions are nearly identical. Rather, the Court finds $700 to be a reasonable amount of sanctions for bringing the moving papers.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Consuelo Herrera’s motion is MOOT.

The Court deems the matters in Plaintiff Rafael Cruz’s Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Defendant.

Defendant and her counsel of record are ordered to pay $700, jointly and severally, to Plaintiffs within 30 days of this ruling.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.