Judge: George F. Bird, Jr., Case: 22CMCV00114, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling
“INSTRUCTIONS:
If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court
appearance on the matter, the moving party must:
1. Contact the opposing party and all other
parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the
tentative ruling.
2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day
before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties
will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and
3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all
parties entitled to receive service.
If this procedure is followed, when the case is
called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its
tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then
no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.
If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may
either be taken off calendar or ruled on.
Case Number: 22CMCV00114 Hearing Date: February 10, 2023 Dept: B
SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
Plaintiff, vs. Defendant. |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
CASE NO: [TENTATIVE] ORDER Dept. B DATE: TIME: COMPLAINT FILED: TRIAL DATE: |
Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“Plaintiff”)
brings this action against Effiem Ina Obasi (“Defendant”) alleging that
Defendant opened a credit account with Plaintiff, Defendant made purchases on
the credit account, and Defendant has failed to make required periodic payments.
(Complaint (“Compl.”), Item CC-4.)
II. MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AS ADMITTED
A.
Motion filed January 9, 2023.
Plaintiff previously brought a
motion to deem requests for admission as admitted on December 1, 2022.
Plaintiff failed to appear at the hearing on January 5, 2023, so the court took
the prior motion off calendar. (See Minute Order dated January 5, 2023.) Plaintiff
filed this Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted on January 9, 2023.
Plaintiff alleges that Requests for Admission, Set One, was propounded on
Defendant on September 22, 2022, and Defendant has failed to respond.
B.
No opposition filed.
Code of Civil Procedure section
1005, subdivision (b), requires that an opposition be served and filed nine
court days before the hearing. Because the hearing on this motion is scheduled
for February 10, 2023, any opposition was due by January 30, 2023. As of February
7, 2023, three court days before the hearing, no opposition has been filed. Defendant
did file a Declaration in Opposition to Motion to deem Matters in Request for Admission
Admitted on January 4, 2023 which attached a copy of her Response to the RFAs and
attached a proof of service.
III. LEGAL STANDARDS
A plaintiff may make a request for
admission without leave of court at any time 10 days after the service of the
summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed,
whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) There is no
limit to the number of requests for admission of the genuineness of documents
that a party can make. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.030, subd. (c).) The party
making the request for admission is limited to 35 matters that do not relate to
the genuineness of documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.030, subd. (a).)
The party whom the request is
propounded upon is required to respond within 30 days after service of a
demand, but the parties are allowed to informally agree to an extension and
confirm any such agreement in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a);
Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.260, subds. (a) and (b).)
If a party fails to respond to a
request for admission, the party to whom the request is directed waives any
objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the
protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) The 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, which the
court shall grant unless it finds that the party to whom the request for
admission has been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a
proposed response to the requests for admission. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280,
subds. (b) and (c).)
IV. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff makes five requests for
admission not related to the genuineness of documents and one request to admit
the genuineness of a copy of a billing statement. (See Motion to Deem Requests
For Admission as Admitted, Exhibit A.) The proof of service attached to Requests
for Admission, Set One, demonstrates that Plaintiff served Defendant by mail to
the address “19116 Reinhart Avenue Carson, CA 90746” on September 22, 2022. (Ibid.)
After service, Defendant had 30 days to respond. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250,
subd. (a).)
The court may not deem requests for
admission as admitted if the party to whom the request for admission has been
directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to
the requests for admission. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (b) and (c).)
On January 4, 2023, Defendant filed an opposition to the prior motion to deem
requests for admission as admitted and the opposition includes responses to the
Requests for Admission at issue here. (Declaration in opposition to motion to
deem matters in Request for Admission admitted, p. 3:13-25.) The proof of
service demonstrates that the responses were served by fax at 8:30pm on January
4, 2023. (Proof of Service attached to Declaration in opposition to motion to
deem matters in Request for Admission admitted.)
Because Defendant did serve
responses to the Requests for Admission before the hearing on February 10,
2023, the Court cannot deem the requests for admission as admitted. Based on
the foregoing, this Motion
V. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as
Admitted is DENIED.
Dated:
Judge of the Superior
Court