Case Number: BC720634 Hearing Date: October 09, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion to Deem Matters Within Request for Admissions (Set One) as True (x2)

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On September 6, 2018, Plaintiffs Kenneth Paul Fox (“Fox”) and Joseph Amarillas Villarba (“Villarba”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant Redmond James O’Neal for (1) assault and battery, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (3) violation of the Ralph Civil Rights Act, (4) negligence, and (5) loss of consortium/negligent infliction of emotional distress. The complaint alleges Plaintiff Fox is gay and that Plaintiff Villarba is his same-sex partner. The complaint also alleges that Fox was walking between his residence and a local laundromat on May 2, 2018 when Defendant, unprovoked and without consent, intentionally and unlawfully struck Fox in the head with a bottle or other hard object and threatened, abused, harassed, and intimidated Fox while he was on the ground.

On August 7, 2019, Plaintiffs filed motions to deem matters in his Request for Admissions (Set One) as true pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280.

On September 12, 2019, the Court continued the hearings on Plaintiffs motions and for Defendant to file an opposition and to file a motion to stay proceedings or for a protective order.

Trial is set for March 6, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiffs ask the Court deem Defendant to have admitted the truth of the matters in Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission (Set One).

Plaintiffs each ask the Court impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,460.00 against Defendant and his counsel of record.

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).)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

On June 13, 2019, Plaintiffs served Defendant with Requests for Admissions (Set One) by U.S. Mail. (Both Declarations of Sasha J. Skaf (“Skaf Decl.”), ¶ 5, Exh. 1.) Responses were due by July 18, 2019. (Id., ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs extended Defendant’s deadline to provide the outstanding responses until August 3, 2019. (Id., ¶ 8, Ex. 2.) To date, no responses have been received. (Id., ¶ 7.)

On September 12, 2019, the Court continued the hearings on Plaintiffs’ motions to allow Defendant to file an opposition and to file a motion to stay proceedings or for a protective order by September 17, 2019. The Court did so because Defendant’s counsel informed the Court that there is a criminal proceeding against Defendant with one of the counts being related to this case. The Court also based its decision on the existence of a pending decision regarding Defendant’s mental competency. Although provided the opportunity to do so, Defendant did not file an opposition or a motion to stay proceedings or for a protective order by September 17, 2019.

Plaintiffs served the Requests for Admissions (Set One), and Defendant did not provide a timely response. As such, the motion is properly granted. The Court provided ample time for Defendant to oppose the motion and file a necessary motion to stay the proceedings or a protective order, if he decided to do so. Defendant has not availed himself of these opportunities. Defendant has not acted with substantial justification and no circumstances exist showing that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust.

Plaintiffs each request $2,460 in monetary sanctions. (Skaf Decl., ¶¶ 9-12.) Each of these requests consist of 3 hours in drafting the motion, 1 hour in reviewing the opposition, 1 hour in preparing a reply, and three hours in traveling the hearings at a rate of $300 an hour, plus one $60 filing fee. (Ibid.) The Court finds these requests to be unreasonable because the motions are nearly duplicative, no oppositions were filed, and the hearings are to take place on the same date, in the same courthouse, in the same department, consecutively. Rather, the Court finds $660 ($300/hr. x 2 hrs. plus one $60 filing fee) to be a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed against Defendant and his counsel of record to be paid to each Plaintiff.

The motions to deem matters in Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission (Set One) are therefore GRANTED.

The Court deems the matters set forth in Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions (Set One) to be true as against Defendant.

The Court also orders Defendant and Defendant’s counsel to pay Fox $660, jointly and severally, within 30 days of this ruling.

The Court further orders Defendant and Defendant’s counsel to pay Villarba $660, jointly and severally, within 30 days of this ruling.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.