Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2022-01248118, Date: 2022-07-29 Tentative Ruling

The court grants Plaintiff Eagle Community Credit Union’s unopposed motion to deem requests for admissions, set one, admitted as to Defendant Carol S. Anzalone ESA Carol Sellwood Anzalone.

On April 14, 2022, Plaintiff mail-served requests for admissions, set one, to Defendant at the correct mailing address as identified on her Answer. (Anaya Decl., at ¶ 2, Exh. A.; see also Answer [ROA 16].) After receiving no response, Plaintiff sent Defendant a meet and confer letter, although not required. (Anaya Decl., at ¶ 4, Exh. B.) As of the filing of this motion on June 13, 2022, no responses had been served. (Anaya Decl., at ¶ 5.)

Unless Defendant serves Code-compliant responses to the request for admission, prior to this hearing, the truth of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s request for admission, set one, are deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c) [the court shall deem the matters 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”]; see also St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 782 [actual compliance not required where the proposed response is facially a good-faith effort to respond to requests for admission in a manner that is substantially code-compliant].)

Within 30 days of the notice of ruling, Defendant is ordered to pay Anaya Law Group $850 in sanctions.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)  

Finally, the court notes that litigants who choose to represent themselves must be treated in the same manner as represented parties and must follow the correct rules of procedure. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985; Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.) A self-represented litigant is not entitled to any greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Petrosyan v. Prince Corp. (2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 587, 594 [self-represented litigants are entitled to same treatment as represented parties]; see Cal Rules of Court, rule 1.6(15) [defines “parties” as including both self-represented persons and persons represented by an attorney of record without making any distinction between them].)

Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the ruling.