MITCHELL BLOCH ET AL VS HAZIE LAZAROF ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC674336    Hearing Date: December 08, 2020    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Hazie Lazarof

RESPONDING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Mitchell Bloch and Daniella Bloch

1. Motion for an Order Establishing Admissions by Plaintiff Mitchell Bloch;

2. Motion for an Order Establishing Admissions by Plaintiff Daniella Bloch

The court considered the moving, joint opposition, and consolidated reply papers filed in connection with each motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Mitchell Bloch and Daniella Bloch (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action on September 1, 2017, against defendant Hazie Lazaorof, an individual dba Hazie Lazarof Marble & Granite (“Defendant”).

On January 13, 2020, Defendant served his Requests for Admissions, Set One, on each plaintiff. (Ross Decls., filed July 2, 2020, ¶¶ 2.) Neither plaintiff has served his or her response despite efforts by Defendant’s counsel to meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs’ failure to respond. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-4.)

Defendant now moves for (1) an order that the truth of the matters specified in Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, to plaintiff Mitchell Bloch, are deemed admitted, and (2) an order that the truth of the matters specified in Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, to plaintiff Daniella Bloch, are deemed admitted. Defendant also requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs in connection with each motion. Plaintiffs filed a joint opposition to Defendant’s motions.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), if a party to whom requests for admissions are directed fails to serve a timely response, 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, and for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). “Failure to timely respond to RFA does not result in automatic admissions. Rather, the propounder of the RFA must ‘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 § 2023.010 et seq.” (Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, ¶ 8:1370, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The court “shall” grant the motion to deem RFA 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).)

In opposition to the motion, Plaintiffs submit the Declaration of Glenn T. Rosen, Plaintiffs’ counsel, in which Mr. Rosen states that, on October 15, 2020, Plaintiffs served their verified responses without objections to Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One. (Rosen Decl., filed November 4, 2020, ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs request that the court deny Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions.

In reply, Defendant concedes that Plaintiffs served their verified responses to Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, but contends that an award of monetary sanctions is mandatory under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c). Because Plaintiffs have served their responses to Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, before the hearing on the motion, the court denies Defendant’s motions for an order that the truth of the matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the court orders as follows.

The court denies defendant Hazie Lazarof’s motion for an order that the truth of the matters specified in his Requests for Admission, Set One, to plaintiff Mitchell Bloch be deemed admitted.

The court denies defendant Hazie Lazarof’s motion for an order that the truth of the matters specified in his Requests for Admission, Set One, to plaintiff Daniella Bloch be deemed admitted.

It is “mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2012.010) 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).) Defendant requests monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1,045 against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel in connection with both motions. The court finds that $1,045 (5 hours x $185 per hour = $925 in attorney’s fees + $120 filing fee for two motions) is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose against Plaintiffs. The court therefore orders that plaintiffs Mitchell Bloch and Daniella Bloch shall pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,045 to defendant Hazie Lazarof within 30 days of the date of service of this order. (Code Civ Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

The court orders defendant Hazie Lazarof to give notice of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 8, 2020

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court