JEFFREY HENDERSON, ET AL. VS CITYWIDE TOWING, INC.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC04554    Hearing Date: August 25, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:    Tue., August 25, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: ­­­­­Blancarte/25

CASE NAME:  Henderson, et al. v. Citywide Towing, Inc.   COMP. FILED: 05-09-19

CASE NUMBER:     19STLC04554 DISC. C/O: 01-26-21

PROCEEDINGS:  MOTION FOR ORDER DEEMING ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

MOVING PARTY:    Plaintiffs Jeffrey and Erica Henderson, in pro per

RESP. PARTY:  Defendant City Wide Towing, Inc.  

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

(CCP § 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Jeffrey and Erica Henderson’s Motion for Order Deeming Admissions Admitted is DENIED.  

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on August 6, 2020 [   ] Late [   ] None

REPLY:  Filed on August 14, 2020 [   ] Late [   ] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On May 9, 2019, Plaintiffs Jeffrey and Erica Henderson (“Plaintiffs”), in pro per, filed an action for violation of vehicle code section 22658, conversion, trespass to chattels, negligence, violation of business and professions code section 17200, and fraud against Defendant Citywide Towing, Inc. (“Defendant”). On June 7, 2019, Defendant filed its Answer, in pro per.

On December 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Order Deeming Admissions Admitted (the “Motion”). At the initial hearing on February 6, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a proof of service demonstrating the Requests for Admission were served on Defendant. (2/6/20 Minute Order.) The Court also noted that because Defendant was a corporation, it needed to obtain legal counsel to proceed. (Id.) 

Defendant filed a Substitution of Attorney and an Opposition to this Motion on August 6, 2020. Plaintiffs filed a Reply on August 14, 2020.

II. Legal Standard

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).) “The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product privilege…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “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, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Id. at subd. (b).) However, a court will not make such an order “if a party to whom 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.” (Id. at subd. (c).)

III. Discussion

Plaintiffs seek an order deeming Requests for Admission admitted, which they argue were served on Defendant on July 3, 2019. (Mot., Henderson Decl., ¶ 2.) As noted above, because Plaintiffs’ Motion did not initially include a proof of service for the Requests for Admission, the Court continued the hearing and ordered Plaintiffs to file a proof of service demonstrating the requests were properly served on Defendant. (2/6/20 Minute Order.)

Notably, the proof of service Plaintiffs filed on June 15, 2020 demonstrates that the Requests for Admission were mailed to Defendant on February 10, 2020, more than one month after filing the instant Motion, and four days after the initial hearing. (6/15/20 Proof of Service.) Indeed, it appears Plaintiffs did not actually serve the Requests for Admission on July 3, 2019, as they originally represented to the Court. Thus, Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendant failed to timely respond to the Requests for Admission purportedly served on July 3, 2019 is wholly unsupported.

The Court also notes that Plaintiffs’ discovery request, which consists of 60 requests for admission, violates Code of Civil Procedure section 94. Section 94 limits discovery in limited civil cases to any combination of 35 interrogatories, demand for production of documents, and requests for admission. (Code Civ. Proc., § 94, subds. (a)(1)-(3).) Despite this violation, Defendant provided substantially compliant responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery request on August 5, 2020. (Oppo., Ring Decl., p.1, Exh. A.) Thus, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Jeffrey and Erica Henderson’s Motion for Order Deeming Admissions Admitted is DENIED. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC04554    Hearing Date: February 06, 2020    Dept: 94

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

(CCP § 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Jeffrey and Erica Henderson’s Motion for Order Deeming Admissions Admitted is CONTINUED to APRIL 14, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25, SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next hearing, Plaintiffs are to file a proof of service demonstrating the Requests for Admission were served on Defendant as indicated in their declaration.

I. Background

On May 9, 2019, Plaintiffs Jeffrey and Erica Henderson (“Plaintiffs”) filed an action for violation of vehicle code section 22658, conversion, trespass to chattels, negligence, violation of business and professions code section 17200, and fraud against Defendant Citywide Towing, Inc. (“Defendant”). On June 7, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

On December 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Order Deeming Admissions Admitted (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed.

II. Legal Standard

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).) “The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product privilege…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “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, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Id. at subd. (b).) However, a court will not make such an order “if a party to whom 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.” (Id. at subd. (c).)

A motion dealing with the failure to respond, rather than with inadequate responses, does not require the requesting party to meet and confer with the responding party. (Deymer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4 [disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973]. There is no time limit within which a motion to have matters deemed admitted must be made. (Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)

III. Discussion

Here, Plaintiffs state they mailed Request for Admissions, Set One, to Defendant on July 3, 2019 and that as of December 18, 2019, no responses had been received. (Mot., Henderson Decl., ¶¶ 2, 4.) Although Plaintiffs attach a copy of the Requests for Admission purportedly served on Defendant, no proof of service demonstrating such service is attached. (Id., Exh. A.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ordered to file a proof of service demonstrating the discovery requests were served on Defendant.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Jeffrey and Erica Henderson’s Motion for Order Deeming Admissions Admitted is CONTINUED to APRIL 14, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25, SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next hearing, Plaintiffs are to file a proof of service demonstrating the Requests for Admission were served on Defendant as indicated in their declaration.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.