Defendant’s Deem-Admitted Motion and Request for Monetary Sanctions
Maria Esmeralda Lopez v. In-N-Out Burger, Inc.
Defendant’s Deem-Admitted Motion and Request for Monetary Sanctions
Hearing Date: April 24, 2026 (continued from April 17, 2026)
The motion of Defendant In-N-Out Burgers (“Defendant”) to deem the facts in its first set of Requests for Admissions (“RFA”) to Plaintiff Maria Esmeralda Lopez (“Plaintiff”) was originally scheduled for hearing on April 17, 2026. Three days prior to the hearing, the Court tentatively granted Defendant’s motion and sanctions request because they were unopposed.
On April 17, the parties appeared and notified the Court that they had stipulated that the deemed-admitted motion is moot because Plaintiff served her verified RFA responses on March 17, 2026, which is one month before the hearing, and the responses substantially comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. [See 4/17/26 Minute Order.] Therefore, Defendant’s motion is MOOT. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).]
Although Plaintiff’s delayed RFA responses rendered Defendant’s deemed-admitted motion moot, Plaintiff cannot escape monetary sanctions. Regardless of the reason for the delay, it is mandatory for the Court to impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response led to the filing of the deemed-admitted motion. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).] “This is the only place in the Discovery Act where sanctions for delay are mandatory. The purpose is to provide incentive to timely respond to RFAs: i.e., no excuses accepted.” [Weil & Brown, Cal.
Practice Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2024) ¶ 8:1377, p. 8G-27.] In fact, the “law governing the consequences for failing to respond to requests for admission may be the most unforgiving in civil procedure. There is no relief under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 473. The defaulting party is limited to the remedies available in [section 2033.280].” [Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 394-395
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The Court determines that an hourly rate of $250 for defense counsel is appropriate. [Cozine Decl. at ¶ 7.] The Court also finds that two hours of work on this motion, along with a $60 filing fee, are reasonable. [Ibid.] Since the motion was opposed, the Court grants Defendant’s request for an additional two hours to review the opposition, prepare the reply, and handle hearing-related tasks. [Ibid.] Therefore, based on the $60 filing fee and four hours of work by defense counsel, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is ordered to pay Defendant monetary sanctions of $1,060 within 30 days of the entry of the Court’s order.
Defendant shall prepare the Proposed Order consistent with this Tentative Ruling.
NOTE RE TENTATIVE RULING
This tentative ruling becomes the court’s order, and no hearing shall be held unless one of the parties contests it by following Rule 3.1308 of the California Rules of Court and Monterey County Local Rule 7.9. Those parties wishing to present an oral argument must notify all other parties and the Court no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing; otherwise, NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE PERMITTED, AND THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL BECOME THE ORDER OF THE COURT AND THE HEARING VACATED. You must notify the court by email or by calling the Calendar Department at 831-647-5800, extension 3040, before 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing.
2