LA INVESTMENTS LLC ET AL VS ROSA BANUELOS ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC544662    Hearing Date: August 18, 2020    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

LA Investments LLC v. Banuelos, et. al., Case No. BC544662 

Tentative Ruling re: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions

Plaintiffs LA Investments, LLC (LAI), 218 Properties, LLC (218 Properties), R22, Inc. (R22), and Peter Starflinger (Starflinger) (collectively, Plaintiffs) move for cost of proof sanctions pursuant to CCP Section 2033.420. The motion is denied.

If a responding party is found to have unreasonably denied an RFA, he or she

may be ordered to pay the costs and fees incurred by the requesting party in proving that matter. On the requesting party's motion, the court is required to make this costs and expenses award (“court shall make this order …”) unless the responding party proves a statutorily-recognized excuse. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.420, subds. (a) & (b).)

Costs may be awarded when the requesting party proves the matter at trial or on a motion for summary judgment. (Barnett v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 494, 497–499.) “[A]n award of costs of proof under section 2033.420 is not a ‘discovery sanction’ or a ‘penalty’ for engaging in ‘misuses of the discovery process’ … Costs of proof in connection with requests for admission are awarded if the response is established to be incorrect—not for the misuse of the discovery process.” (City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Assocs., LLC (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 344, 359.)

The costs and expenses award is limited to “reasonable expenses incurred … including reasonable attorney's fees” in proving matters unreasonably denied. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.420, subd. (a).) Only expenses resulting from the responding party’s failure to admit the RFA are awardable. Therefore, expenses and fees incurred before the RFA was denied are not awardable under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420. (Garcia v. Hyster Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 724, 736 (Garcia).) Costs and expenses under section 2033.420 are awardable against the client, not against the attorney. (Estate of Manuel (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 400, 404–405.)

The statutorily recognized excuses for denial are: (1) an objection to the request was sustained; (2) the admission was of “no substantial importance;” (3) the responding party had “reasonable grounds” to believe it would prevail on the matter; or (4) there was “other good reason” for denying the request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.420, subd. (b)(1) –

As an initial matter R22 and 218 Properties were dismissed from this action and the judgment entered on December 3, 2019 was in favor of Plaintiffs LAI and Starflinger only. Accordingly, R22 and 218 Properties have no standing to bring the instant motion.

The RFA’s at issue were propounded by dismissed Plaintiff R22. (Johnson Decl., Exhs. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9.) Thus, the non-dismissed Plaintiffs, LAI and Starflinger are attempting to recover costs of proof for RFA’s propounded by another party. As the Court of Appeals has stated, one party may not “recover cost of proof expenses based upon requests for admission propounded by someone else.” (Design Built Systems v. Sorokine (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 676, 694 (Design Built Systems).)

Plaintiffs argue that R22 was an agent of Starflinger and LAI and argues that the court in Design Built Systems distinguished a situation in which the requesting party is “‘standing in the shoes’ of the principal.” (Reply, at p. 4.) This is not the holding of the Court of Appeal. There is nothing in Design Built Systems that holds that a principal may stand in the shoes of an agent and recover costs for any RFA’s propounded by said agent. Instead the Court of Appeal was explicit in holding that only the propounding party may recover cost and expenses in proving the RFA’s.

Furthermore, the plain language of the statute says that: “if the party requesting that admission thereafter proves the genuineness of that document or the truth of that matter, the party requesting the admission may move the court for an order requiring the party to whom the request was directed to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in making that proof, including reasonable attorney’s fees.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.420.) Thus, only the party requesting the admission is authorized to recover the fees in proving the admission. There is nothing in the statute that lets a party recover costs for RFA’s propounded by another party, agent or otherwise. Furthermore, because R22 was dismissed prior to trial, it follows that R22 did not prove anything at trial with respect to the RFA’s.

Even if the motion did not suffer from the foregoing defects, the Court would deny the motion since Plaintiffs’ do not present admissible evidence for the Court to evaluate what work went into proving the truth of the RFA’s. Plaintiffs attach a 115-page timesheet with the entries completely blacked-out save for the hours worked and the amounts billed. (Johnson Decl., Exh. 16.) This makes it impossible for the Court to evaluate the fees incurred in proving the RFAs. Moreover, Plaintiffs do not even attempt to argue what work went into proving the RFA’s at issue. Plaintiffs must present evidence showing they spent the amounts claimed to prove the issues defendants should have admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.420, subd. (a); Garcia, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 737 [declaration setting out attorney’s hourly fees regarding costs of proof required].) “The requested amounts must be segregated from costs and fees expended to prove other issues.” (Grace v. Mansourian (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 523, 529.) Plaintiffs have failed to do this.