Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This is a collections case.  Plaintiff JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. alleges Defendant Susan Smith failed to pay amounts due on a credit card account.  Plaintiff brings a single claim for common counts.   

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted its requests for admissions (set one) (“RFAs”).  Plaintiff served the RFAs on July 16, 2024.  Defendant did not respond.  Although Plaintiff had no obligation to meet and confer on a failure to respond to RFAs, Plaintiff wrote to Defendant to inquire about her response.  Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiff’s letter.  There is no opposition filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling.   

 

 

      DISCUSSION 

Where a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the propounding 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.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).) 

The court shall grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “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).) 

Here, Plaintiff served its first set of RFAs on July 16, 2024.  Defendant failed to respond to the RFAs within the deadline.  And as of the hearing on this motion, Defendant has not served any response, much less one that is substantially compliant with the code.   Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to deem RFAs admitted. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted its requests for admissions (set one).   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: November 12, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court