Case Number: BC581954??? Hearing Date: October 20, 2016??? Dept: 53
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ? CENTRAL DISTRICT
DEPARTMENT 53
SUNNEE JUNTHANUN, et al.;
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PLB MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al.;
Defendants.
Case No.: BC581954
Hearing Date: October 20, 2016
Time: 8:30 a.m.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:DEFENDANT?S MOTION FOR ORDER ESTABLISHING ADMISSIONS
Defendant PLB MANAGEMENT, LLC?S motion for an order establishing admissions by Plaintiffs SUNNEE JUNTHANUN and NATHANKAN RUEASRICHAN BAUTISTA is DENIED.
However, the Court awards sanctions in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs in the amount of $810 to be paid within 30 days of notice of this order.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Sunnee Junthanun and Nathankan Rueasrichan Bautista (jointly ?Plaintiffs?) filed this action on May 14, 2015 against Defendant PLB Management, LLC (?Defendant?). Plaintiffs generally allege that they resided in an apartment owned and managed by Defendant that contained uninhabitable conditions including bedbug infestations. Plaintiffs assert various causes of action including claims for breach of the warranty of habitability.
On June 30, 2016, Defendant propounded its first set of written discovery on Plaintiffs including a first set of requests for admission. (Weiss Decl. ??2-3, Ex. 1.) On July 29, 2016, Defendant?s counsel granted Plaintiffs? counsel a two-week extension for Plaintiffs to serve their responses, making the new deadline to respond August 15, 2016. (Weiss Decl. ?5.) As of the filing of this motion, Plaintiffs had not provided responses to Defendant?s requests for admission. (Weiss Decl. ?10.)
On October 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed an ?Objection to Deem Admissions Admitted; Declaration of Brian Virag.? The Declaration of counsel states that responses to requests for admissions were served on the defense on October 19, 2016, by fax and mail.
LEGAL STANDARD
If a party to whom requests for admission 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, as well as for a monetary sanction. (CCP ?2033.280(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.? (CCP ?2033.280(c).) Moreover, it is mandatory that the Court impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response necessitated the motion. (Id.)
Although Plaintiff?s Opposition was untimely, the Court has discretion to consider it which this court does.
DISCUSSION
Based on the declaration of Plaintiffs? counsel, CCP ?2033.280(c) applies and Defendant?s motion is denied on that basis.
CCP ?2033.280(c) also states: ?It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction . . . on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admissions necessitated this motion.?
The Court awards monetary sanctions in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs and their counsel in the amount of $810 (3 hours at reasonable hourly rate of $250 plus a $60 filing fee).
Although the primary reason for the delay was: ?Plaintiffs (apparently both of them) has been very ill with Hepatitis C),? the Requests for Admissions were served more than 100 days ago, more than enough time for Plaintiffs? counsel to gather information from the file and from Plaintiffs to formulate proposed responses. This was not done and there is no explanation why not.
Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.
DATED: October 20, 2016
_____________________________
Howard L. Halm
Judge of the Superior Court