This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/29/2019 at 01:52:29 (UTC).

LORENZO RODRIGUEZ VS ANTONIO RAMIREZ

Case Summary

On 04/11/2018 a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle case was filed by LORENZO RODRIGUEZ against ANTONIO RAMIREZ in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1696

  • Filing Date:

    04/11/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

RODRIGUEZ LORENZO

Defendants and Respondents

RAMIREZ ANTONIO

DOES 1 TO 10

 

Court Documents

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

5/17/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

CIVIL DEPOSIT

5/17/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

5/17/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/23/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS

4/11/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

4/11/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/17/2018
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • Answer; Filed by Antonio Ramirez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • Receipt; Filed by Antonio Ramirez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • Notice; Filed by Antonio Ramirez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Lorenzo Rodriguez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Lorenzo Rodriguez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC701696    Hearing Date: January 21, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Deem Matters in Request for Admissions (Set One) as True

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On April 11, 2018, Plaintiff Lorenzo Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Antonio Ramirez (“Defendant”) alleging motor vehicle negligence for an incident that occurred on March 15, 2017.

On December 19, 2019, Defendant filed a request to deem mattes within Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Plaintiff pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b).

Trial is set for April 20, 2020.

PARTYS REQUEST

Defendant asks the Court to deem the matters in Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Plaintiff for his failure to provide timely responses.

///

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), a “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).”  The court “shall” grant the motion to deem requests for admission admitted “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.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and a motion to compel responses to interrogatories against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

On July 29, 2019, Defendant served Request for Admissions (Set One) on Plaintiff  by U.S. mail and facsimile.  (Ganapathy Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Defendant has not received responses as of the time that Akhila Ganapathy signed the declaration submitted in support of this motion on December 19, 2019.  (Ganapathy Decl., 3.)

The Court finds the motion is properly granted.  The written discovery request was properly served and there was no timely response.  Defendant may be entitled to sanctions, but does not request them.  As such, Plaintiff has not been put on notice of potential monetary sanctions.  The Court does not award sanctions.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

The Court deems the matters within Request for Admissions (Set One) Defendant served on Plaintiff to be deemed admitted against Plaintiff.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.