Hao v. Subaru of America Inc.

CASE NO.: 25SMCV00847 MOTION: Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted HEARING DATE: 8/19/2026

Legal Standard

Pursuant to CCP section 2033.280(b), a 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). "Failure to timely respond to RFA does not result in automatic admissions. Rather, the propounder of the RFA must '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 Sec. 2023.010 et seq." (CCP, Sec. 2033.280(b).)

The court "shall" grant the motion to deem RFA admitted, "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." (CCP, Sec. 2033.280(c).)

ANALYSIS

Defendant Subaru of America, Inc. moves for the following orders:

(1) that the truth of each and every matter specified within the First Set or Requests for Admissions Propounded by Defendant Subaru or America, Inc. to Plaintiff Shumming Hao (the "RFAs (Set One)"), served November 7, 2025, be deemed admitted;

(2) that the truth of each and every matter specified within the Second Set or Requests for Admissions Propounded by Defendant Subaru of America, Inc. to Plaintiff Shumming Hao (the "RFAs (Set Two)"), served April 28, 2026, be deemed admitted; and

(3) awarding monetary sanctions against plaintiff Shumming Hao ("Plaintiff") and/or Plaintiff's counsel of record, Kyle Tracy, Esq., Ezra Ryu, Esq. and Astrid Souto, Esq., of American Lemon Law Group, LLP, jointly and severally, in the sum of $1,775.00.

The motion is substantively moot. Defendant moved to deem admissions because Plaintiff's initial responses were not verified. (Kreshek Decl., P.P. 5, 7.) "Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all." (Appleton v. Superior Ct., (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 636.)

After Defendant brought the motion, Plaintiff provided the required verifications on June 22, 2026. (Ryu Decl., P.P. 3-4.) Plaintiff demonstrates that it was counsel's oversight which resulted in the lack of verification. Thus, counsel's conduct necessitated the motion.

Monetary sanctions are mandatory, without exception. (CCP Sec. 2033.280.) Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff's counsel of record in the noticed amount of $1,775.00. Sanctions are payable to Defendant's counsel of record within 30 days.

Health Capital, et al. v. Best Denture Dental Labs Inc.