Case Number: 16K02825 Hearing Date: June 25, 2018 Dept: 94

Plaintiff Wenjuan Zhong’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is granted in the amount of $10,377.06, $10,296.00 in attorneys’ fees and $81.06 in costs.

Discussion

On March 3, 2016, Plaintiff Wenjuan Zhong (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract against Defendants Shao Bijian and Guojing X (“Defendant Xu”). On February 7, 2017, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories and Requests for Admission on Defendant Xu. (Motion, Chen Decl., ¶4.) In response, Defendant Xu denied (1) being an owner or employee of China USA Student Exchange Center; (2) that she received $15,000.00 from Plaintiff; (3) that she agreed to retain an attorney for Plaintiffs son in exchange for the $15,000.00; (4) that she retained an attorney to help Plaintiff’s son with his immigration visa; and (5) that she returned the $15,000.00 to Plaintiff. Plaintiff moves pursuant to CCP section 2033.420 for the expense of having the proof the truth of these matters at trial.

“The determination of whether a party is entitled to expenses under section 2033.420 is within the sound discretion of the trial court. More specifically, section 2033.420 clearly vests in the trial judge the authority to determine whether the party propounding the admission thereafter proved the truth of the matter which was denied. An abuse of discretion occurs only where it is shown that the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. The primary purpose of requests for admissions is to set at rest triable issues so that they will not have to be tried; they are aimed at expediting trial. [Citation.] The basis for imposing sanctions … is directly related to that purpose. Unlike other discovery sanctions, an award of expenses … is not a penalty. Instead, it is designed to reimburse reasonable expenses incurred by a party in proving the truth of a requested admission … [citations] such that trial would have been expedited or shortened if the request had been admitted.” (Brooks v. American Broadcasting Co. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 500, 509.) In determining whether a party had no good reasons for denial of the request for admission so as to warrant imposition of expenses, the Court may properly consider whether, at the time denial was made, the party making the denial reasonably entertained a good faith belief that the party would prevail on the issue at trial; it is not enough for the party making the denial to “hotly contest” the issue, but, rather, there must be some reasonable basis for contesting the issue in question before sanctions can be avoided. (Id.; see also City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Associates, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 344, 353-354.)

After Defendant Xu denied working at China USA Student Exchange Center, or receiving $15,000 from Plaintiff, or agreeing to retain an attorney to assist Plaintiffs son apply for an immigration visa in exchange for $15,000, Plaintiff served two deposition subpoenas at a cost of $81.06 to the bank where Plaintiff wired the $15,000. (Motion, Chen Decl., ¶7 and Exh. F.) Plaintiff’s counsel then prepared Joint Witness List, Joint Exhibit List, Exhibit Book and Trial Brief in preparation for trial to prove that Plaintiff entered into an oral agreement with Defendants who worked at China USA Student Exchange Center for Defendants to retain an immigration attorney for her son in exchange for $15,000.00. (Id. at ¶8.) In total, Plaintiff’s counsel spent 26.4 hours on these discovery issues. (Ibid.) As a result, Plaintiff’s counsel proved at those issues at trial and obtained a judgment for $15,000.00 against both Defendants, who were found severally and jointly liable. (Judgment, dated 2/20/18.) Plaintiff’s counsel charges $390.00 per hour, for a total of $10,296.00. (Motion, Chen Decl., ¶8.)

Based on the foregoing and Defendant Xu’s failure to oppose the motion, the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is granted in the amount of $10,377.06, $10,296.00 in attorneys’ fees and $81.06 in costs.

Plaintiff to give notice.