Case Number: BC690966 Hearing Date: March 18, 2019 Dept: 4A

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES: THE COURT WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE TO HEAR ARGUMENT ON MARCH 18, 2019. IF THE PARTIES SUBMIT, THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING WILL BE ADOPTED AS FINAL. IF THE PARTIES WISH TO SCHEDULE ARGUMENT, PLEASE CONTACT DEPARTMENT 4A TO ARRANGE A HEARING DATE.

Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions as Admitted

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.

BACKGROUND

On January 16, 2018, plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against defendant Alan Manuel Castillas Sandaval (“Defendant”) for subrogation recovery, alleging negligence for a vehicle collision that occurred on December 9, 2015.

Trial is set for May 14, 2019.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Plaintiff requests this court order Plaintiff’s propounded Requests for Admission (Set One) be deemed as admitted. Plaintiff further requests this court to order Defendant and his attorneys of record to pay sanctions in the amount of $615.00.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to California 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). “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 Code of Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (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

On July 5, 2018, Plaintiff served Requests for Admissions (Set One) on Defendant by mail. (Aguirre Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. A.) Defendant’s responses were due on August 9, 2018. (Aguirre Decl. ¶ 5.) On October 8, 2018, Plaintiff met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel regarding Defendant’s lack of response to Requests for Admissions (Set One). (Aguirre Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. B.) Defendant had not served a response to Plaintiff’s propounded Requests for Admissions (Set One) as of the signing of James H. Aguirre’s declaration on January 25, 2019. (Aguirre Decl. ¶ 9.)

The motion is GRANTED because Plaintiff properly served Requests for Admission (Set One) and Defendant failed to serve responses.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (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 California Code of Civil Procedure section 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.”

It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated a motion to deem them admitted. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (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.”

Plaintiff requests $615.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel of record, Alireza Mark Balali and Jeffrey C. Lynn. The court finds that $430.00 ($185.00/hr. x 2 hrs. plus one $60.00 filing fee) is a reasonable amount to be imposed against Defendant and Defendant’s attorneys.

The court ORDERS the following:

The truth of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions (Set One) is deemed admitted against Defendant.

Defendant and her attorneys of record, Alireza Mark Balali and Jeffrey C. Lynn, are ordered to pay to Plaintiff a monetary sanction in the amount of $430.00 within 30 days.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.