| Madrigal-Camacho v. Velasquez | CASE NO. 114CV258518 | |
| DATE: 29 August 2014 | TIME: 9:00 | LINE NUMBER: 14 |
This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 19 in the Old Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 161 North First Street, San Jose. Any party opposing the tentative ruling must call Department 19 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM Thursday 28 August 2014. Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.
On 29 August 2014, the motion of Plaintiffs for:
- an order deeming requests for admissions served on Defendant Empresas, Mendez, Meraz, Inc. dba Morgan Hill Foods to be admitted and for monetary sanctions; and
- an order deeming requests for admissions served on Defendant Joel Velasquez to be admitted and for monetary sanctions
were argued and submitted.[1]
Defendants did not file formal opposition to the motion.[2]
All parties are reminded that all papers must comply with Rule of Court 3.1110(f).[3] It was somewhat difficult for this Court to fish through the papers to find the exhibits.
I. Statement of Facts.
Plaintiff Quiroz was employed as a produce clerk by defendants for approximately 2 years. Plaintiffs Madrigal-Camacho was employed as a manager for about five years. They were assigned to work six days a week.
The complaint in this matter was filed on 3 January 2014. The complaint alleges that defendants failed to pay the two Plaintiffs over time and minimum wages, failed to provide accurate pay stubs and records, fails to pay wages due at the end of the employment and committed certain other Labor Code violations vis-à-vis the Plaintiffs.
Defendant Empresas, Mendez, Meraz, Inc. dba Morgan Hill Foods answered the complaint on 14 March 2014 while Defendant Velasquez answered the complaint on 16 April 2014.
II. Discovery Dispute.
A. RFAs Served on Defendant Empresas, Mendez, Meraz, Inc. dba Morgan Hill Foods.
On 27 May 2014, each Plaintiff served by mail identical sets of requests for admissions on Defendant Empresas, Mendez, Meraz, Inc. dba Morgan Hill Foods. The time to respond expired on 1 July 2014 without any stipulation for an extension. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that this Defendant refuses to respond to the request for donations on the advice of counsel.
On 1 July 2014 Defendant Empresas, Mendez, Meraz, Inc. dba Morgan Hill Foods served an objection to the requests for admission. The objection, which is attached to the motion, states that the requests “are vague, ambiguous and overbroad. Responding party is in the process of conducting discovery and can perhaps provide more responsive information at a later date.” This Defendant also asserted that Eleazar Quiroz worked for responding party for a maximum of 20 days, and that Guillermo Madrigal-Camacho worked for Defendant for a maximum of 59 days.
There does not appear to have been any “meet and confer” between the parties from the time the responses were served to the time that this motion was filed on 30 July 2014.
B. RFAs Served on Defendant Velasquez.
On 27 May 2014, each Plaintiff served upon Defendant Velasquez their first set of requests for admissions. Responses would have been due on 1 July 2014. In an e-mail dated 21 July 2014, counsel for Velasquez said “[a]t the moment he is on unemployment and has truthfully not paid one of my bills…..[H]e is in a terrible state and are having a company for so long and pretty much losing it….[T]ell an idea of an amount of how much could reach a settlement…..”
Other than this e-mail, there does not appear to be any “meet and confer” between the parties.
III. Analysis.
A. Motion to Deeming Requests Admitted
Code of Civil Procedure, § 2033.220 states, in part:
(a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.
(b) Each answer shall:
(1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.
(2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue.
(3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.
* * * * *”
When a responding party makes no response to document requests or interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and production of the requested documents pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) sections 2030.290 and 2031.310. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2008) (“Weil & Brown”) at ¶¶8:1483-8:1488, 8:1136.)
With respect to RFA, failure to timely respond to RFA does not result in automatic admissions. (Id.at ¶8:1370.) 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.” (Id., citing CCP § 2033.280(b).) The Court shall grant the motion, “unless it finds that the party to whom the [RFA] have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response … in substantial compliance with” CCP section 2033.220 prior to the hearing. (Id.at ¶8:1374, citing CCP § 2033.280(c).)
To prevail on its motion, all Plaintiff needs to show is that the discovery requests were properly served, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (See Id. at ¶8:1140, citing Leach v. Super. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)
Moreover, if a party to whom interrogatories, document production requests, and request for admissions are directed fails to serve timely responses, that party waives any right to object to the requests, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product. (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280(a).)
The Court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance; and (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Id.)
1. Defendant Empresas, Mendez, Meraz, Inc. dba Morgan Hill Foods.
This Defendant served objections and, according to the ruling papers, they are timely. Plaintiffs’ motion to deem the requests for admissions served on Defendant Empresas, Mendez, Meraz, Inc. dba Morgan Hill Foods is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a motion to compel further responses.
2. Defendant Velasquez.
Defendant Velasquez has not served any responses to the requests for admissions. Plaintiffs requests the Court deem them admitted. Such a request must be granted unless the Court finds that the party to whom the RFA have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response that is in substantial compliance with CCP section 2033.220. (Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶8:1374, citing CCP § 2033.280(c).) Given that the statutory language is mandatory and that Velasquez has not provided any responses prior to the hearing on t he his Motion, the Court must GRANT Plaintiffs’ request. The requests for admissions served on Defendant Velasquez are deemed admitted.
B. Sanctions.
Plaintiffs in a makes a request for monetary sanctions.
Code of Civil Procedure, § 2023.040 states: “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” See Rule of Court 2.30.
The request is code-compliant. Plaintiffs cite Code of Civil Procedure, § 2033.280 as the basis for the imposition of sanctions. Subdivision (c) states”
“The court shall make this order, 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. It 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.”
1. Defendant Empresas, Mendez, Meraz, Inc. dba Morgan Hill Foods.
This Defendant served timely objections and Plaintiffs did not prevail against this Defendant. The request for sanctions against Defendant Empresas, Mendez, Meraz, Inc. dba Morgan Hill Foods is DENIED.
2. Defendant Velasquez.
This Defendant did not serve a response at all and thus Plaintiffs are entitled to monetary sanctions.
Plaintiffs seek $3094.00 in monetary sanctions, for 5.95 billable hours at $520 per hour. The amount of time is not broken down between preparation of the motion, review of an anticipated opposition, preparation of a reply and perhaps appearances at a hearing on this motion.
As an aside, this Court notes that Plaintiffs claim to have incurred 15.15 billable hours in the preparation of the motion against Defendant Empresas, Mendez, Meraz, Inc. dba Morgan Hill Foods. This Court wonders why the motion against that Defendant took almost three times as long to prepare as the one against Velasquez.
This Court believes that both amount of time claimed and the rate are far in excess of what this court usually sees for a uncontested motion of this type. This Court will award three hours of time at $400 an hour plus the $90 motion fee for a total of $1290.00. Defendant Velasquez is to pay the sum of $1290.00 to counsel for Plaintiffs within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.
IV. Order.
Plaintiffs’ motion to deem the requests for admissions served on Defendant Empresas, Mendez, Meraz, Inc. dba Morgan Hill Foods is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a motion to compel further responses.
The requests for admissions served on Defendant Velasquez are deemed admitted.
The request for sanctions against Defendant Empresas, Mendez, Meraz, Inc. dba Morgan Hill Foods is DENIED.
Defendant Velasquez is to pay the sum of $1290.00 to counsel for Plaintiffs within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.
| ____________________________
DATED: |
_________________________________________________
HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN Judge of the Superior Court County of Santa Clara |
[1] Rule of Court 3.1345(d) states: “A motion concerning interrogatories, inspection demands, or admission requests must identify the interrogatories, demands, or requests by set and number.”
[2] “The failure to file a written opposition or to appear at a hearing or the voluntary provision of discovery shall not be deemed an admission that the motion was proper or that sanctions should be awarded.” Rule of Court 3.1348(b).
[3] “Each exhibit must be separated by a hard 81/2 x 11 sheet with hard paper or plastic tabs extending below the bottom of the page, bearing the exhibit designation. An index to exhibits must be provided. Pages from a single deposition and associated exhibits must be designated as a single exhibit.”
Link to this page