Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV00430, Date: 2022-12-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00430    Hearing Date: December 30, 2022    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED

ALLEGATIONS:

Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendant Dustin D. Roddewig (“Defendant”), alleging Defaulted on his credit card failing to make the required monthly payments.  His outstanding debt is approximately $26,671.20.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on June 13, 2022 alleging a single cause of action: (1) Common Counts.

HISTORY:

The Court received Plaintiff’s Motion filed on November 18, 2022.  No opposition was received. 

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff moves for an Order deeming the truth of the matters included within Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One admitted by Defendant, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

ANALYSIS:

I.          LEGAL STANDARD

When a party fails to timely respond to requests for admissions, “[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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party “waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)  Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.250, a responding party must serve responses to a propounding party’s requests for admissions within thirty (30) days of service.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).)

“The court shall make . . . [an] order [deeming the truth of the matters specified in the requests for admission for which a timely response has not been served 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

When a party fails to timely respond to requests for admissions, “[t]he requesting party may move . . . for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

II.        MERITS

The Court concludes Plaintiff is entitled to an Order deeming the truth of the matters included within Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One, admitted by Defendant, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  Plaintiff demonstrates, on approximately September 6, 2022, Defendant was properly served with Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One by mail.  (Langedyk Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A at p. 4 [Proof of Service, stating Defendant was served at the following address: 10621 Valley Spring Ln, Apt. 209 North Hollywood, CA 91602]; see Def.’s Answer [page 1 of Defendant’s Answer, filed July 12, 2022, indicated Defendant’s address is: 10621 Valley Spring Ln, Apt. 209 North Hollywood, CA 91602].) 

Pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant was required to serve responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One no later than October 11, 2022.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.250, subd. (a) [responses to requests for admission must be served within 30 days of service], 1013, subd. (a) [“any period of notice and any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended five calendar days, upon service by mail”].)  Plaintiff demonstrates Defendant has not served a response to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One by the aforementioned deadline, or anytime thereafter.  (Langedyk Decl., ¶ 3 [“Plaintiff has received no response to these requests for admissions.”].)   Accordingly, as Plaintiff’s submitted evidence sufficiently demonstrates Defendant has failed to serve a timely response to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One, the Court concludes Plaintiff is entitled to an Order deeming the truth of the matters included within Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One, admitted by Defendant, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

III.       CONCLUSION

Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s Motion for Order That Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts Be Admitted is GRANTED. 

---

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s Motion came on regularly for hearing on December 30, 2022, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION IS GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF / MOVING PARTY TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE:  December 30, 2022                           _______________________________

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge

                                                                        Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles