Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This dispute arises out of the construction of an approximately 18,000 square foot home in Pacific Palisades, California, located at 15954 Alcima Avenue (the “Property”).  Defendant 15951 Alcima LLC (“Alcima”) is the owner of the Property.  Defendant Suarez Build Construction Inc.  (“Suarez”) served as a general contractor to Alcima.   

Suarez requested construction services from KE General Building Inc. (“KE”).  Alcima allegedly agreed to the requests for construction services by accepting and directly benefiting from the construction services provided by KE and further by Alcima directly paying KE for said services.   

KE assigned its claims to Plaintiff SoCal Lien Solutions LLC (“SoCal”).  SoCal claims that despite KE having performed the construction services requested by Suarez, Suarez and Alcima have failed and refused to pay the remaining balance due of $49,537.43.  Alcima filed a cross-complaint against Suarez.    

This hearing is on Alcima’s motion to deem requests for admissions (set one) (“RFAs”) admitted and for sanctions against Suarez.  Alcima argues that Suarez has failed to timely respond to the RFAs, which waives all objections and gives this Court authority to issue an order that the truth of the matters specified in the RFAs be deemed admitted.  There was no opposition filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling. 

      LEGAL STANDARD 

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).) 

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).)  While delayed responses may avoid a motion to deem admitted, they will not avoid monetary sanctions.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280 subd. (c); Gonzales v. Harris, 2021 Cal. Super. LEXIS 29267 at *6 (even if delayed responses are served, sanctions are mandatory because the motion had to be brought, regardless of whether it is ultimately denied because responses are served before the hearing).)  

ANALYSIS 

On January 30, 2024, Alcima served Suarez’s counsel via email with the RFAs.  (Cade Decl. ¶ 2.)  Suarez’s written responses were due to be served on or before March 4, 2024, which was 30 days plus an additional two court days for service via email.  (Id. ¶ 4.)  Suarez did not respond by March 4, 2024, and as of the filing of the motion, Suarez still had not responded.  (Id. ¶ 8.)  Accordingly, the Court grants Alcima’s motion to deem the RFAs admitted. 

Alcima also seeks attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,000.¿ Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §2033.280(c), “[i]t 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 admission necessitated this motion.”¿ The Court concludes sanctions are mandatory given Suarez failed to timely provide responses, necessitating this motion.¿  

In determining the appropriate amount of sanctions, the Court starts with the lodestar which is the reasonable hourly rate multiplied by the reasonable hours spent.  (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1096; see also¿Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)   

Alcima’s counsel bills at an hourly rate of $400 and expects to spend 2.5 hours preparing the motion and attending the hearing.  (Cade Decl. ¶¶ 9-10.)  Counsel’s paralegal bills at an hourly rate of $175 and has spent 3 hours assisting in the preparation and filing of the motion.  (Id. ¶ 11.)  Alcima also incurred filing fees in the amount of $68.91 to file the motion.  (Id. ¶ 13.)  Alcima requests sanctions in the amount of $1,000 which is substantially less than the total amount billed for this motion (of $1,593.91).   

Counsel’s hourly rate and the total hours billed are reasonable, and the Court will award monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1,000.   

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Alcima’s motion to deem admitted requests for admissions and for sanctions against Suarez in the amount of $1,000, to be paid within 30 days of this Order.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: April 29, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court