MANUEL CHAVEZ, ET AL. VS GERMAN CORONEL, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******3259 Hearing Date: February 4, 2022 Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On January 27, 2021, Manuel Chavez and Alejandra Soriano filed this action (the “Chavez Action”) against defendants German Coronel (“Coronel”) and Coronel Demolition, Inc. arising from a multi-vehicle automobile collision occurring on November 24, 2019.

On August 27, 2020, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, filed an action against Coronel (the “State Farm Action”) arising from the same automobile accident.

On November 17, 2021, the Court deemed the Chavez Action and the State Farm Action to be related and ordered the Chavez Action to be the lead case. On December 10, 2021, Coronel filed this motion to consolidate the two actions. The motion is unopposed.

“When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” (Code Civ. Proc. 1048, subd. (a).) The purpose of consolidation is to enhance trial court efficiency by avoiding unnecessary duplication of evidence and the danger of inconsistent adjudications. (See Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-979.)

The motion for consolidation is procedurally deficient because no notice of motion to consolidate was filed in the State Farm Action. However, both matters are before this Court and the Court notes that a stipulation and proposed order to relate and consolidate actions was filed in the State Farm Action on January 12, 2022.

Therefore, the Court will waive the technical deficiency and GRANT the Motion to Consolidate.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.

b'

Case Number: *******3259 Hearing Date: November 23, 2021 Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On January 27, 2021, Plaintiffs Manuel Chavez (“Plaintiff”) and Alejandra Soriano filed this action against Defendant German Coronel (“Defendant”) and Coronel Demolition, Inc.

On April 22, 2021, Plaintiff served Requests for Admissions (Set One) on Defendant. (Ibarra Decl., Ex. A.) On June 9, 2021, Defendant requested a 30-day extension to provide responses; Plaintiff offered a two-week extension but maintained that objections were waived. (Ibarra Decl., ¶¶ 7-9.) Plaintiff’s counsel’s office followed up on June 22, 2021, but did not receive any response. Plaintiff subsequently filed this Motion on August 17, 2021.

Where a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the propounding 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. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2033.280, subd. (b).) The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).)

A court shall grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “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).)

The hearing on this matter was continued to this date from November 10, 2021. The Court ordered Defendant to submit a supplemental declaration supporting his opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted. In the supplemental declaration, defense counsel explains that he inadvertently failed to scan the verifications for the responses to the requests for admission when he served them on July 6, 2021. (Boyd Decl., ¶¶ 4-5, Ex. A.) Defense counsel attaches the written discovery responses with the missing verification, as well as the other responses to written discovery and their respective verifications to show that the failure to include the verification was inadvertent. (Id., Ex. C.) Defense counsel also states that Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed his receipt of these discovery responses and that the only address of record he has been provided is the one on the pleadings, such that the discovery responses were sent to the address represented by Plaintiff’s counsel to be accurate. (Id., ¶ 12, Ex. D.)

Defendant has sufficiently shown that substantially compliant responses were served prior to the hearing on this motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

The Code of Civil Procedure provides that where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t 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, subd. (c).)

It is undisputed that Defendant’s responses are untimely. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Defendant and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $435, consisting of 1 hour at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate of $375 and a $60 filing fee, to be paid within 20 days of the date of this order.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.

b'

Case Number: *******3259 Hearing Date: November 10, 2021 Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On January 27, 2021, Plaintiffs Manuel Chavez (“Plaintiff”) and Alejandra Soriano filed this action against Defendant German Coronel (“Defendant”) and Coronel Demolition, Inc.

On April 22, 2021, Plaintiff served Requests for Admissions (Set One) on Defendant. (Ibarra Decl., Ex. A.) On June 9, 2021, Defendant requested a 30-day extension to provide responses; Plaintiff offered a two-week extension but maintained that objections were waived. (Ibarra Decl., ¶¶ 7-9.) Plaintiff’s counsel’s office followed up on June 22, 2021, but did not receive any response. Plaintiff subsequently filed this Motion on August 17, 2021.

Where a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the propounding 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. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2033.280, subd. (b).) The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).)

A court shall grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “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).)

Defendant opposes the motion on the grounds that responses were already served on July 6, 2021. Defendant attaches responses to counsel’s declaration as Exhibit A. However, the responses do not include a verification. Accordingly, the responses served are not substantially compliant. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.

The Code of Civil Procedure provides that where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t 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, subd. (c).) Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Defendant and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $435, consisting of 1 hour at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate of $375 and a $60 filing fee.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.