Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 24STCV16736, Date: 2024-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV16736    Hearing Date: October 3, 2024    Dept: 58

Judge Bruce Iwasaki 

Department 58 

Hearing Date:             October 3, 2024           

Case Name:                 Craig B. Forbes v. Luis Benavides; SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union; Charlee Pitre; and Does 1 to 10, inclusive

Case No.:                    24STCV16736

Motion:                       Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted  

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Craig B. Forbes

Tentative Ruling:      Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions as Admitted is DENIED.

Background

This action arises from an alleged breach of a verbal contract between Plaintiff Craig B. Forbes (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Charlee Pitree (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed his Complaint on July 8, 2024, alleging three causes of action against Defendants Luis Benavides; SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union; Charlee Pitre; and Does 1 to 10, inclusive: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealings; and (3) fraudulent misrepresentation. Plaintiff served his Complaint on Defendant Charlee Pitre by personal service on July 12, 2024, and by mail on July 15, 2024. Plaintiff served his Complaint on Defendants Benavides and SchoolsFirst Credit Union by mail on August 8, 2024.

Defendants SchoolsFirst Credit Union and Luise Benavides filed an Answer on August 13, 2024. Defendant Charles Pitre (“Defendant”) filed a separate Answer on September 6, 2024.

On September 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for an order to deem requests for admission (“RFA”) admitted by Defendant.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2033.280, subdivision (b) states that if a party to whom requests for admissions is directed fails to serve a timely response, “[t]he 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).” The court must 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff testifies that Defendant was served the RFA in person and by mail on July 15, 2024. (Declaration of Craig Forbes, ¶ 3.) This date indicates the RFA was served concurrently with the Complaint.

“A plaintiff may make requests for admission by a party without leave of court at any time that is 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, that party, whichever occurs first.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.020, subd. (b).) In this case, Plaintiff served the RFA prematurely, by serving it with the summons, without leave of court. Because Plaintiff failed to follow the proper procedure for serving an RFA, Defendant was not obligated to respond. Plaintiff can serve the RFA again to cure this procedural defect.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions as Admitted is DENIED.