arrow left
arrow right
  • VIJAY SINGH VS. HAMZA WALUPUPU ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • VIJAY SINGH VS. HAMZA WALUPUPU ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • VIJAY SINGH VS. HAMZA WALUPUPU ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • VIJAY SINGH VS. HAMZA WALUPUPU ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • VIJAY SINGH VS. HAMZA WALUPUPU ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • VIJAY SINGH VS. HAMZA WALUPUPU ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • VIJAY SINGH VS. HAMZA WALUPUPU ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • VIJAY SINGH VS. HAMZA WALUPUPU ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - VEHICLE RELATED document preview
						
                                

Preview

ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of Catifornia, WALTER J. MCMATH III, ESQ. — State Bar No. 266382 County of San Francisco HARTSUYKER, STRATMAN & WILLIAMS-ABREGO 03/13/2019 Mailing Address Clerk of the Court BY:EDWARD SANTOS. Deputy Clerk P.O. Box 258829 Oklahoma City, OK 73125-8829 Physical Address 505 14th Street, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612-1913 Phone: (510) 457-3440 Fax: (510) 238-8968 Attorney for Defendant, HAMZA WALUPUPU SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO VISAY SINGH, Case No.: CGC-17-562077 LIMITED JURISDICTION Plaintiff, ASSIGNED TO FOR ALL PURPOSES: vs. DEPT: Not Assigned HAMZA WALUPUPU, AND DOES 1 TO 20, (DISCOVERY) Defendants. DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTED DATE: April 9, 2019 TIME: 9:00 am DEPT: 302 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1 INTRODUCTION This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on April 21, 2016 at Haight Street and Ashbury Street, in the city of San Francisco. Plaintiff alleges that the acts of Defendant HAMZA WALUPUPU were negligent, which resulted in injury to Plaintiff. DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTED - I aDISCOVERY REQUESTS AT ISSUE In order to verify material facts relating to Plaintiff's allegations, Defendant served Plaintiff with a Request for Admissions, Set One on or about September 14, 2018. The answers sought in the Request for Admissions are necessary, so that Defendant can determine whether any material facts are disputed and whether further discovery is required. (McMath Decl. lines 4 ~ 7, see also Exhibit “A”). To date, Plaintiff’ s counsel has not provided responses and has continued to wholly ignore the discovery. Left with no other alternative, Defendant is forced to bring this motion to this Court. 2. ARGUMENT A. The Code of Civil Procedure Authorizes an Order Compelling Responses to the Discovery in Question. Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290 permits a propounding party to bring a motion to compel responses, if a party to whom such discovery requests are directed fails to serve timely responses thereto. This section further states that any objections to the discovery requested, including objections based upon privilege or work product protection, are waived. In bringing such a motion, all that needs to: be shown in the moving papers is that a set of Request for admissions was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (2005) { 8:1140 (citing Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906 (No separate statement is required; California Rule of Court 335(b).) Pursuant to CCP § 2030.260, the response is due within 30 days from the date the Request for Admissions were served (extended 5 days for service by mail). In this case, there is an undisputed, wholesale failure to provide responses to the Request for Admissions at all, timely or otherwise. The Request for Admissions was served on Plaintiff's attorney off record, Ayana K. Young, Esq. on or about September 14, 2018. The time to respond expired on or about October 24, 2018. Accordingly, Plaintiff's responses to the discovery requests in question (Request for Admissions, Set one) should be compelled, with a finding that all objections have been waived. See CCP § 2033.280(@) et. Seq. DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTED -2B. Since Plaintiff and their Counsel continue to ignore their Discovery Obligations, the Request for Admissions Should Be Deemed Admitted 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.” CCP § 2033.280(b) Since this motion deals with a failure to respond rather than inadequate responses, no attempt need be shown to resolve the matter informally (‘meet and confer’). Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (2005) 48:1371 (citing Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.4th 393, 395.) Pursuant to CCP § 2033.250, the response is due within 30 days after service of requests for admission (extended 5 days for service by mail). In this case, the plaintiff has failed to provide any response to the defendant’s Request for Admissions. The Requests for Admission were first served on plaintiff's attorney of record Ayana K. Young, Esq. on or about September 14, 2018. The time to respond expired on or about October 24, 2018. Accordingly, Plaintiffs responses to the discovery requests in question (Request for Admissions, set one) should be deemed admitted. C. Monetary Sanctions are Mandatory Imposition of a monetary sanction under CCP §2033.280(c) is mandatory for the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response necessitated the motion to deem facts admitted. CCP §2033.280(c); Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-636 (in reversing trial court's refusal to impose sanctions, the court of appeal held that unlike CCP § 2033(1), the court has no discretion to deny sanctions under subd. (K)) now known as CCP §2033.280(c). Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010(d) states that failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. Monetary sanctions for such misuse of the discovery process are specifically authorized by section 2023.030, which shall include reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, as a result of the conduct. In addition, section 2030.300 mandates an award of monetary sanctions to any party that unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless it DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTED -3finds that the party subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances exist that would make imposition of the sanctions unjust. In addition, CCP §2033.290(d) provides that “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010)”...when a party unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel further response to a request for admissions. Defendants respectfully request issuance of monetary sanctions in the amount of $615.00 for Plaintiffs’ misuse of the discovery process by failing to respond as permitted by Code of Civil Procedure! sections 2023.010 and 2023.030. Having been forced to prepare and file the motions to compel discovery, plaintiffs will incur $615.00 in costs and fees. (McMath Decl., lines 10-16) Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests a monetary award of sanctions in the amount of $615.00 from Plaintiff and their attorney in this matter. 3. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully request that the court grant its motion to compel Responses to Request for Admissions, (set one), or in the alternative have admissions requested in Request for Admissions (set one) deemed admitted, and further requests that the court award monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $615.00. had, DATED: | | 2019 HARTSUYKER, STRATMAN & WILLIAMS- ABREGO BY: Mable f) Me Myf EB WALTER J. MCMATH Ill, ESQ. Attorney for Defendant, HAMZA WALUPUPU DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTED - 4Re: Singh v. Walupupu, et al. Case Number: CGC-17-562077 PROOF OF SERVICE Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1013a, 2015.5 Tam a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 505 14th Street, Suite 400, Oakland, CA 94612-1913. On Macey ia, 2019, I served the following document(s): DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPELRESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTED FROM VIJAY SINGH By placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope, addressed as set forth below, and placing the envelope for collection and mailing in the place designated for such in our offices, following ordinary business practices. By transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. By causing a true copy thereof to be personally delivered to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. By electronically serving the document(s) described above via a Court approved File & Serve vendor on those recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on # __ the vendor’s Website. By electronically serving the document(s) to the electronic mail address set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. pursuant to the signed stipulation of the parties and consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(2). SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST Tam readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. - Executed on Viacn \3 2019, at Oakland; Galjfornia. fo 2 faethe. ADRIANA CADENA DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTED - 5Re: Singh v. Walupupu, et al. Case Number: CGC-17-562077 SERVICE LIST Ayana K, Young Law Offices of Ayana K. Young 3000 Citrus Circle, Suite 240 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Attorney for Plaintiff, Vijay Singh Phone: (925) 433-5978 Fax: (925) 217-4969 ayana@akyounglaw.com DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MCTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTED - 6