On 05/07/2019 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JOSHUA BAILEY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
*******4442
05/07/2019
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
WENDY CHANG
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
BAILEY JOSHUA
SCHOECK MICHAEL D
MILLER JENNIFER E
Court documents are not available for this case.
Hearing05/10/2022 at 10:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service
Hearing06/23/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff)
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: JOSHUA BAILEY (Defendant)
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: JOSHUA BAILEY (Defendant)
DocketUpdated -- Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted: Filed By: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); Result: Granted; Result Date: 09/23/2020
DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)
DocketHearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted scheduled for 09/23/2020 at 09:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 09/23/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: JOSHUA BAILEY (Defendant)
DocketStipulation and Order TO CONTINUE TRIAL, [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES]; Filed by: JOSHUA BAILEY (Defendant); As to: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff)
DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: JOSHUA BAILEY (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 06/10/2019; Service Cost: 89.50; Service Cost Waived: No
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 05/10/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 11/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: JOSHUA BAILEY (Defendant)
DocketDeclaration DECLARATION OF VENUE; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: JOSHUA BAILEY (Defendant)
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: JOSHUA BAILEY (Defendant)
DocketComplaint; Filed by: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Plaintiff); As to: JOSHUA BAILEY (Defendant)
Case Number: 19STLC04442 Hearing Date: September 23, 2020 Dept: 26
State Farm v. Bailey, et al MOTION
TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED (CCP
§ 2033.280) TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission
Admitted Against Defendant Joshua Bailey is GRANTED. DEFENDANT JOSHUA BAILEY IS
TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $460.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF
THIS ORDER. ANALYSIS: On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) served Requests for Admissions on Defendant Joshua
Bailey (“Defendant”). (Motion, Reese
Decl., Exh. A.) Despite providing an extension of the time to
serve responses, to date, Plaintiff has not received any verified responses to
the discovery requests propounded on Defendant. (Id. at pp. 1:24-2:2.)
As a result, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admissions to Defendant
as Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions (the
“Motion”) on June 12, 2020. Defendant filed an oppostion
on September 10, 2020. Discussion Defendant has
not provided verified responses to the discovery propounded by Plaintiff on
October 15, 2019. There is no requirement for a prior meet and confer effort
before a motion to deem requests for admission can be filed. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2033.280.) Further, the motion can be brought any time after the responding
party fails to provide the responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.) Despite
Defendant’s opposing argument that the Court exercise its discretion to deny
the Motion and request for sanctions, no legal authority grants this Court the
power to ignore the express legislative mandate: If a party to whom requests for
admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules
apply: . . . (b) 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 (commencing with Section 2023.010). (c) 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. It is mandatory that the court impose a
monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) 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 (emphasis added).) This action
was filed in May 2019 and defense counsel has had 13 months to locate Defendant
prior to the filing of the instant Motion. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to
an order deeming the Requests for Admission admitted. The Court also finds the failure to respond a misuse of the
discovery process. In ignoring communications from defense counsel, Defendant
has willfully ignored his obligations under the Discovery Code. (See Opp.,
Zaiderman Decl., ¶¶2-5.) Sanctions are appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure
sections 2023.010, 2023.030 and 2033.280, and have been properly noticed.
Sanctions are granted against Defendant in the amount of $460.00, based on two
hours of attorney time billed at $200.00 per hour, plus the $60.00 filing fee.
(Id. at p. 2:6-9.) Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests
for Admission Admitted Against Defendant Joshua Bailey is GRANTED. DEFENDANT JOSHUA
BAILEY IS TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $460.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE
OF THIS ORDER. Moving party to give notice.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases