Case Number: KC069427 Hearing Date: February 21, 2020 Dept: J

HEARING DATE: Tuesday, January 21, 2020

NOTICE: See below[1]

RE: Stith v. Cervantes, et al. (KC069427)

______________________________________________________________________________

Defendant Maria Esther Cervantes’ MOTION FOR ORDER THAT REQUESTS FOR

ADMISSION BE DEEMED ADMITTED

Responding Party: None (unopposed, as of 1/9/20, 3:31 p.m.; due 1/7/20)

Tentative Ruling

Defendant Maria Esther Cervantes’ unopposed Motion for Order that Requests for

Admission be Deemed Admitted is GRANTED. Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(b), the court

orders that the truth of the matters and the genuineness of all documents specified in the

Requests for Admissions, Set One, propounded by Cervantes to Plaintiff be deemed

admitted. Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $61.65 and payable within 30 days.

Background

Plaintiff Michael Stith (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff and Defendant Maria Esther Cervantes (“Cervantes”) were involved in a business and romantic relationship. Plaintiff served as the property manager and partner on Cervantes’ five properties and they began a medical cannabis cultivation company (“company”) together. During Plaintiff’s four-month incarceration in 2016, Cervantes began giving away company property to Defendant Sheila Vazin (“Vazin”), did not follow up on the assignment and assumption of the company’s commercial lease agreement, accused Plaintiff of forging signatures on her checks and stealing her identity, falsely obtained a restraining order against Plaintiff and gave Vazin access to Plaintiff’s personal information so that Vazin could steal Plaintiff’s identity.

On February 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), asserting causes of action against Cervantes, Vazin and Does 1-100 for:

Abuse of Process

Slander Per See—CCP § 46

Conversion

Aiding and Abetting Conversion

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Breach of Contract

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

The Final Status Conference is set for June 8, 2020. Trial is set for June 16, 2020.

Legal Standard

A response to requests for admission is due 30 days after service. (CCP § 2033.250(a).) If a

party to whom the requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the

requesting 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. (CCP § 2033.280(b).) 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. (CCP § 2033.280(c).) It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (CCP § 2033.280(c).)

Discussion

Cervantes moves the court for an order that the truth of the matters and the genuineness of

all documents specified in Cervantes’ Requests for Admissions, Set One, served on Plaintiff on

November 4, 2019 be deemed admitted. Cervantes also seeks monetary sanctions in the amount

of $ against Plaintiff.

On November 4, 2019, Cervantes served the subject discovery. (Charles Decl., ¶2.) On December 10, 2019, Cervantes’ counsel Craig Charles (“Charles”) sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel Stephanie Beaudry, requesting responses to the subject discovery by December 13, 2019. (Id., ¶4.) Cervantes did not receive a response by December 13, 2019. (Id.) The motion was filed on December 16, 2019.

The motion is unopposed.

The motion is GRANTED. Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(b), the court orders that the truth of the matters and the genuineness of all documents specified in the Requests for Admissions, Set One, propounded by Cervantes to Plaintiff be deemed admitted.

Sanctions

Cervantes has only specifically identified filing fees of $61.65; accordingly, the court imposes sanctions of $61.65, payable within 30 days.

[1] The face page of the motion does not list the January 21, 2020 hearing date, nor is the hearing date referenced in the notice of motion. Attached to the notice of motion, however, is a motion reservation sheet, reflecting the January 21, 2020, 8:30 a.m. date and time of the hearing. The proposed order and Declaration of Attorney Craig F. Charles Supporting Motion that Requests for Admission be Deemed Admitted, which were mail-served December 16, 2019 on opposing counsel concurrently with the motion, both list the January 21, 2020, 8:30 a.m. hearing date and time in the respective captions.