This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/19/2019 at 00:35:11 (UTC).

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS DOE 1 ET A

Case Summary

On 10/10/2017 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against DOE 1 ET A. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8855

  • Filing Date:

    10/10/2017

  • 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

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Defendants and Respondents

DOE 1

BAUTISTA MARIA

DOES 1 TO 10

MEJIA RAFAEL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

PLEASANT JOSEPH M. ESQ.

PLEASANT JOSEPH M

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/1/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

ANSWER-PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

12/5/2017: ANSWER-PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

11/14/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

COMPLAINT

10/10/2017: COMPLAINT

DECLARATION OF VENUE

10/10/2017: DECLARATION OF VENUE

SUMMONS

10/10/2017: SUMMONS

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/11/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Defendant Maria Bautista's Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default...) of 06/11/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Defendant Maria Bautista's Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Declaration (Of Breanne L Reese Esq in opposition to Defendants Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment); Filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Declaration (Of Ozzy Cruz in opposition to Defendants Motion to Set Aside default judgment); Filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Opposition (To Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment); Filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment; Filed by Maria Bautista (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
13 More Docket Entries
  • 12/05/2017
  • ANSWER-PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2017
  • Answer; Filed by Rafael Mejia (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2017
  • COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2017
  • DECLARATION OF VENUE

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC678855    Hearing Date: January 17, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion: Motion to Deem Matters in Request for Admissions (Set One) as True filed by Plaintiff State Farm Automobile Insurance Company

Opposed: Yes

Proposed Ruling: Grant the motion.

Special Issues: None

Law Clerk: Jamison Gilmore, ext. 7101

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

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On October 10, 2017, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint-in-subrogation for its insured against Defendants Maria E. Bautista and Rafael Mejia alleging negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on September 5, 2015.

On August 17, 2016, the Court entered default against Defendant Rafael Mejia.

On November 18, 2019, Plaintiff’s filed a request to deem mattes within Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Defendant Maria E. Bautista pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b).

On December 6, 2019, the Court continued the hearing to January 17, 2020.

Trial is set for July 22, 2020.

///

///

PARTYS REQUEST

Plaintiff asks the Court to deem the matters in Request for Admissions (Set One) as true against Defendant Maria E. Bautista (“Opposing Defendant”) for her failure to provide timely responses.

Plaintiff also asks the Court to impose $460 in monetary sanctions against Opposing Defendant for her abuse of the discovery process.

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 August 8, 2019, Plaintiff served Request for Admissions (Set One) on Opposing Defendant by U.S. Mail.  (Pleasant Decl., Exh. A.)  Opposing Defendant had not served responses as of the time Joseph M. Pleasant, Esq. signed his declaration on October 15, 2019.  (Pleasant Decl.) a duplicate copy of special interrogatories and, thus, did not provide the requested responses.  (Bautista Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.)  Opposing Defendant answered Request for Admissions (Set One).  (Bautista Decl., ¶ 6.)  Plaintiff has not received Opposing Defendant’s answers.  (Pleasant Reply Decl.)

The Court finds the motion is properly granted.  The written discovery request was properly served and there was no timely response.  Opposing Defendant does not submit a proof of service or other evidence showing she served the outstanding responses on Plaintiff.  Opposing Defendant may present such evidence at the hearing.  However, the Court can only look at the competing declarations in showing that Plaintiff has not submitted sufficient evidence showing the motion should not be granted.

Opposing Defendant’s failure to distinguish between special interrogatories and request for production does not render an imposition of sanctions as unjust.  Plaintiff’s request for $460 in sanctions consists of two hours in bringing this motion at a rate of $200 an hour plus one $60 filing fee.  (Pleasant Decl.)  This amount of sanctions is reasonable.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

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

Plaintiff is ordered to pay $460 to Opposing Defendant within 30 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: BC678855    Hearing Date: December 06, 2019    Dept: 4A

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

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On October 10, 2017, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint-in-subrogation for its insured against Defendants Maria E. Bautista and Rafael Mejia alleging negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on September 5, 2015.

On August 17, 2016, the Court entered default against Defendant Rafael Mejia.

On November 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request to deem matters within its Requests for Admissions (Set One) to be true against Defendant Maria E. Bautista pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b).

Trial is set for July 22, 2020.

PARTYS REQUEST

Plaintiff asks the Court to deem the matters in its Requests for Admissions (Set One) to be true against Defendant Maria E. Bautista (“Opposing Defendant”) based on failure to provide timely responses.

Plaintiff also asks the Court to impose $460 in monetary sanctions against Opposing Defendant for her abuse of the discovery process.

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 August 8, 2019, Plaintiff served its Requests for Admissions (Set One) on Opposing Defendant by U.S. Mail.  (Pleasant Decl., Exh. A.)  Opposing Defendant had not served responses as of the time Joseph M. Pleasant, Esq. signed his declaration on October 15, 2019.  (Pleasant Decl.) a duplicate copy of special interrogatories and, thus, did not provide the requested responses.  (Bautista Decl., ¶ 3-5.)  Since the motion was filed, Opposing Defendant answered the Request for Admissions (Set One).  (Bautista Decl., 6.)  Plaintiff has not received Opposing Defendant’s answers.  (Pleasant Reply Decl.)

The Court finds the motion is properly granted.  The written discovery request was properly served and there was no timely response.  Opposing Defendant does not submit a proof of service or other evidence showing that she served the outstanding responses on Plaintiff.  Opposing Defendant may present such evidence at the hearing.  At this point, however, the Court can only look at the competing declarations about whether Plaintiff has provided compliant responses because Opposing Defendant has not submitted his verified response to the Requests for Admissions demonstrating compliance with his discovery obligations,  nor even the proof of service showing that these responses were served on Plaintiff. 

Opposing Defendant’s failure to distinguish between special interrogatories and request for production does not render the imposition of sanctions to be unjust.  Plaintiff’s request for $460 in sanctions consists of two hours in bringing this motion at a rate of $200 an hour plus one $60 filing fee.  (Pleasant Decl.)  This amount of sanctions is reasonable.

The motion is GRANTED.

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

Plaintiff is ordered to pay $460 to Opposing Defendant within 30 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.