STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS EVA GINCIG, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC08690    Hearing Date: September 21, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Mon., September 21, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Gincig, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC08690 COMPL. FILED: 09-19-19

NOTICE: OK DISC. C/O: 02-16-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED (X2)

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motions to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted are GRANTED. Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are also GRANTED in the amount of $320.00 to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of service of this order.

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: None filed as of September 16, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of September 16, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On September 19, 2019, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Eva Gincig (“Eva”) and Steve Gincig (“Steve”) (collectively, “Defendants”). On January 23, 2020, Defendants filed a joint Answer.

On June 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed the two instant Motions to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted (the “Motions”). On July 8, 2020, the Court scheduled the Motions for hearing for September 21, 2020. (7/8/20 Minute Order.) Plaintiff gave Defendants notice of the scheduled hearing on July 27, 2020.

To date, Defendants have not filed an opposition.

1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Requests for Admission

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).) “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…” (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).) 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.)

Here, Plaintiff served each Defendant with Requests for Admission, Set One, on February 6, 2020 via regular mail. (Motions, Espinosa Decl., ¶ 1, Exh. A.) Although not statutorily required, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendants’ counsel a letter regarding the lack of discovery responses. (Id. at ¶ 2, Exh. B.) To date, Defendants have not provided any responses to the Requests for Admission. (Id.) Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admissions, Sets One, admitted against Defendants. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

B. Request for Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Furthermore, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

The Court finds Defendants’ failure to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests a misuse of the discovery process. In addition, the Court is required to impose a monetary sanction on Defendants for their failure to respond to the Request for Admissions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).

Plaintiff’s counsel requests a total of $920.00, based on four hours of attorney time billed at $200.00 per hour and two filing fees of $60.00. (Motions, Espinosa Decl., ¶ 2.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of these nearly identical Motions and the lack of opposition and reply. The Court finds $320.00, based on one hour of attorney time and two filing fees, to be reasonable. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motions to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted are GRANTED. Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are also GRANTED in the amount of $320.00 to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within thirty (30) days of service of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.