Juan Gutierrez vs JM Roofing Company Inc et al

Case Number

24CV05331

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 08/11/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion: Order Deeming Admissions

Tentative Ruling

Juan Gutierrez v. JM Roofing Company, Inc., et al.  

Case No. 24CV05331

           

Hearing Date: August 11, 2025                                  

HEARING:              Motion of Defendants Our Lady of Sorrows Roman Catholic Church, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education and Welfare Corporation, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Funeral and Mortuary Services Corporation, and Archdiocese of Los Angeles Risk Management Corporation for Order Establishing Truth of Requests for Admissions to be Admitted; Request for Monetary Sanctions

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Juan Gutierrez.: Raymond Ghermezian

                                    For Defendants Our Lady of Sorrows Roman Catholic Church,             Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education and Welfare   Corporation, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Funeral and           Mortuary Services Corporation, and Archdiocese of Los     Angeles Risk Management Corporation: Fred Grannis

                                    For Defendant JM Roofing Company Inc. dba Action Roofing:      Thomas Friedman

                                   

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of defendants Our Lady of Sorrows Roman Catholic Church, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education and Welfare Corporation, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Funeral and Mortuary Services Corporation, and Archdiocese of Los Angeles Risk Management Corporation for order establishing truth of requests for admissions, set one, to be admitted, is considered moot, and the request for monetary sanctions is granted.

Monetary sanctions are awarded in favor of moving parties, and against plaintiff, in the amount of $1,052.36, to be paid to counsel for the moving parties no later than August 25, 2025.

Background:

This action was commenced on September 25, 2024, by the filing of the Judicial Council form complaint by plaintiff Juan Gutierrez against defendants JM Roofing Company, Inc. dba Action Roofing (“JM Roofing”), Our Lady of Sorrows Roman Catholic Church, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education and Welfare Corporation, Archdiocese of Los Angeles Funeral and Mortuary Services Corporation, and Archdiocese of Los Angeles Risk Management Corporation (collectively “the Church”) for General Negligence and Premises Liability.

The complaint alleges that on October 19, 2022, plaintiff was acting within the course and scope of his employment with the Church and was in the process of installing a water pump at Our Lady of Sorrows Roman Catholic Church when a Doe defendant negligently set up a ladder at an unsafe proximity to plaintiff and dropped, or caused to fall, a large heavy object which struck plaintiff on the head causing him injuries.

JM Roofing answered the complaint on December 12, 2024, with a general denial and 20 affirmative defenses.

The Church defendants answered the complaint on December 27, 2024, with a general denial and 14 affirmative defenses.

On April 16, 2025, The Church defendants moved to compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents, as well as move for an order that their requests for admissions be deemed admitted. The Church defendants also sought monetary sanctions in connection with each of the discovery motions. Plaintiff did not file a timely opposition.

One court day prior to the July 21, 2025, hearing on the discovery motions, plaintiff filed a declaration of counsel that blamed the failure to respond to discovery on staff. (Note: It is always the responsibility of the attorney to ensure proper legal representation, not staff.) The declaration also stated the responses to the discovery had been served the same day. Again, one court day before the hearing.

On July 21, 2025, the court deemed all of the discovery motions moot, other than the motion pertaining to the requests for admissions, and imposed monetary sanctions for the Church defendants having to bring the motions. The motion pertaining to the requests for admissions was continued to August 11, 2025.

Analysis:

On January 3, 2025, the Church served RFAs, set one, on plaintiff. (Grannis Decl., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff’s responses were originally due by February 5, 2025, but that time was extended by 30 days. (Id., at ¶ 3.)

Plaintiff has never responded to the RFAs or responded to attempts by the Church to meet and confer. (Grannis Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6.) [Note: As noted above, plaintiff did respond to all the discovery one court day prior to the hearing on the motions.]

RFAs “differ fundamentally from other forms of discovery. Rather than seeking to uncover information, they seek to eliminate the need for proof.” (Murillo v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 730, 735.)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2033.010 provides, in pertinent part: “Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties.”

“The party to whom requests for admission have been directed shall respond in writing under oath separately to each request. Each response shall answer the substance of the requested admission, or set forth an objection to the particular request.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.210, subds. (a-b).

“(a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

“(b) Each answer shall:

“(1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.

“(2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue.

“(3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.

“(c) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220.)

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

“(a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:

“(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.

“(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

“(b) 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 under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

“(c) The court shall make this order, 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. It 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, italics added.)

Plaintiff’s late responses to the 90 requests for admission admit some requests, deny some requests, and, for most of the requests, state:

“Pursuant to CCP § 2033.220(c) Plaintiff has conducted a diligent search and cannot admit or deny the matters set forth in this request because plaintiff does not at this time have knowledge of these matters, and despite reasonable inquiry into the matter by reviewing all of the records and information available to plaintiff. Plaintiff can neither admit [n]or deny this request. Discovery and investigation continue.”

The Church defendants argue that the response is not in substantial compliance with the Discovery Act and that the court should deem the requests admitted.

“ ‘ “Substantial compliance, as the phrase is used in the decisions, means actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute.” ’ (Stasher v. Harger–Haldeman (1962) 58 Cal.2d 23, 29 (Stasher).) Where there is compliance as to all matters of substance technical deviations are not to be given the stature of noncompliance. [Citation.] Substance prevails over form.’ ” [Citations.] Our high court has more recently explained with respect to the above-quoted passage from Stasher: “ ‘This formulation is unobjectionable so long as it is understood to mean that each objective or purpose of a statute must be achieved in order to satisfy the substantial compliance standard, but this language cannot properly be understood to require ‘ “actual compliance” ’ with every specific statutory requirement.’ ” (Costa v. Superior Court (2006) 37 Cal.4th 986, 1017, fn. 24.)” (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 779.)

The court finds that the responses, though not fully compliant with the discovery act, are in substantial compliance. As such the motion is moot. Should the Church defendants wish to compel further responses to the requests, they must follow all the procedural requirements, including meeting and conferring, in order to elicit fully compliant responses. Plaintiff’s counsel would be advised to carefully craft any further responses so that they are fully compliant with the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Church seeks monetary sanctions of $1,052.36 for fees incurred in bringing the motion. Due to plaintiff’s not having filed a timely opposition to the motion, the tentative ruling for the July 21, 2025, hearing reduced that amount because there was no need to file a reply brief. However, as a result of plaintiff late-filing his declaration and discovery responses, the Church filed a supplemental memorandum of points and authorities, a supplemental declaration of counsel, and a separate statement. The full amount of requested sanctions will be awarded to compensate the Church defendants for the attorney’s fees incurred for the necessity of bringing the motion.