Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 23STCV11792, Date: 2025-04-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11792    Hearing Date: April 8, 2025    Dept: 76

The following tentative ruling is issued pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1308 at 2:52 PM on April 7, 2025. 

Notice of intent to appear is REQUIRED pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1).  The Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein. 

As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(1), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 by 4:00 p.m. on April 7, 2025.

Notice to Department 76 should be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org, with opposing parties copied on the email.  The high volume of telephone calls to Department 76 may delay the Court’s receipt of notice, so telephonic notice to 213-830-0776 should be reserved for situations where parties are unable to give notice by email.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, the Court may not entertain oral argument if notice of intention to appear is not given.

Plaintiff Fora Financial Asset Securitization 2021 LLC moves to deem admitted requests for admission served upon Defendant Curtis Wade.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Fora Financial Asset Securitization 2021 LLC’s motion to deem admitted requests for admission served upon Defendant Curtis Wade is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s notice of motion did not specify an amount of sanctions. Nor were any memorandum of points and authorities submitted, as required by Civ. Proc. Code, § 2023.040. As such, the request for sanctions is DENIED.

ANALYSIS

Motion To Deem Admitted Requests For Admission          

Plaintiff Fora Financial Asset Securitization 2021 LLC moves to deem admitted requests for admission served upon Defendant Curtis Wade.

When a party to whom a request for admissions are directed fails to respond, under Civ. Proc. Code, § 2033.280(b) a party propounding the request for admission may move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted.  “The court shall make this order [deem admitted], unless it finds that the party to whom the request for admissions have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the request for admission that is in substantial compliance with section 2033.220.” (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2033.280(c).) 

As of the date of this motion, Defendant Curtis Wade has failed to serve any responses to the specific requests for admission identified in the motion. (Declaration of Nick I. Iezza, ¶¶ 3, 4.) As such, the motion for an order deeming admitted requests for admission against Defendant is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s notice of motion did not specify an amount of sanctions. Notice of motion, Page 2. Nor were any memorandum of points and authorities submitted, as required by Civ. Proc. Code, § 2023.040. As such, the request for sanctions is DENIED. The denial of sanctions is without prejudice to a separate motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030.  (See City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46, 72.)