Case Number: BC706174 Hearing Date: April 16, 2019 Dept: 2

Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Reconsidering that Part of the Court’s Order Granting Defendant RRG Besh, Inc.’s Motion for (1)(A) an Order Deeming Requests for Admission Admitted and (1)(B) for an Order Denying in Full Defendant’s Motion for an Order Deeming Requests for Admission Admitted, or in the alternative (2) for an Order Permitting Plaintiff to Withdraw or Amend those Requests for Admission, filed on 3/4/19, is DENIED.

Motions to Reconsider under CCP 1008 requires that the motion be made 10 days from the order and that the motion be based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law.

The motion is timely made, but Plaintiff has not shown new or different facts, circumstances or law that warrant reconsideration. Plaintiff’s counsel claims the Defendant’s deemed admitted motion should be denied in full because Plaintiff’s counsel believes the responses were code compliant.

The Court did not find the responses to be code compliant because instead of admitting, denying, or asserting lack of sufficient information or knowledge, Plaintiff asserted that Plaintiff was unable to respond because of phrasing of particular requests. Motion, Ex. 1, 2:26 – 3: 10.

Disagreement with the Court’s ruling is not a basis for reconsideration. Plaintiff has to assert some fact or authority that was not previously considered by the court. Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal. App. 4th 1494, 1500.

Plaintiff concedes the responses were not code compliant since Plaintiff’s counsel told his paralegal to draft a second version to make them code complaint, but apparently the paralegal sent the first draft. Azizi declaration ¶ 6-8.

Having conceded the responses were not code compliant, Plaintiff’s alternative motion seeks to withdraw those responses and amend the responses.

Plaintiff can amend responses if he shows show mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect and lack of substantial prejudice on the part of Defendant. Cal. Code Civil Procedure §2033.300(a).

This argument is inconsistent with Plaintiff’s counsel’s first argument, which claims that the responses were code compliant. Azizi declaration ¶ 4. Having admitted that, Plaintiff’s counsel then contends he read the first draft of the responses and advised his paralegal to redraft the responses to be code compliant. ¶ 6.

The Court considers whether the “mistake” or “neglect” is one that a reasonably prudent person might make under the same or similar circumstances. Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 270, 276.

Plaintiff’s counsel signed the same page containing the defective responses. Motion, Ex. 1, page 3. Failure to discover that the “uncorrected” responses were sent out until after the hearing does not meet the reasonably prudent person standard.

Plaintiff’s counsel does not establish how he has been otherwise diligent in pursuing this claim.

The Court has discretion to impose sanctions for violation of Cal. Code Civil Procedure § 1008 as allowed by Cal. Code Civil Procedure §128.7. By signing a motion, counsel certifies that the motion is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, that the contentions are warranted and have evidentiary support. Monetary sanctions may be imposed against Plaintiff’s counsel. Cal. Code Civil Procedure § 128.7(d). Accordingly, the Court imposes sanctions of $1,350.00against, Plaintiff’s counsel, David Azizi. Such sanctions are payable within thirty (30) days.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.