Defendant The Turoci Firm’s motion to deem facts admitted in its requests for admission, is denied as moot.
If a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admission, the requesting may move for an order that the requests be deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The court “shall” make this order unless, before the hearing, a proposed response in substantial compliance with CCP section 2033.220 has been served. (See St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776 [service of substantially compliant responses prior to the hearing on the “deemed admitted” motion will defeat a propounding party’s attempt to have the requests deemed admitted].)
Here, Plaintiff Scott Carlton opposes the motion on the ground that timely responses to the requests for admissions were served. (Opp. at p. 1, Exh. B.) Defendant denies having received a copy of these responses. The Court does not question that defense counsel did not receive the responses, but finds that there is sufficient evidence in the proof of service that Plaintiff timely served his responses. The motion is moot.
Monetary sanctions are mandatory against “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).) Because the Court finds timely responses were served, monetary sanctions are not mandatory or warranted.
As Defendant astutely pointed out in its Reply, Plaintiff’s counsel could have contacted defense counsel and avoided unnecessary filings and the use of judicial resources.
Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling.