Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24NNCV01180, Date: 2025-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV01180    Hearing Date: May 9, 2025    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

On April 26, 2024, Plaintiffs Andrew Stewart and Shyla Stewart (“Plaintiffs,” self-represented litigants) filed the complaint against Defendants Joseph Dumbacher and John Dumbacher (“Defendants,” self-represented litigants) for fraud related to Plaintiffs’ purchase of real property from Defendants.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to make proper disclosures about deficiencies and risk to the property through their Real Estate Transfer Closing Disclosure dated August 24, 2021, and Plaintiffs did not discover the misrepresentations until they took occupancy in December 2021.  

B.     Relevant Background and Motion on Calendar

On September 23, 2024, the Court dismissed William Cleary without prejudice from the complaint, as no such defendant was named in the action.  The Court also set a Status Conference re: Mediation for January 16, 2025, a Final Status Conference for June 25, 2026, and Jury Trial for July 6, 2026. 

On January 16, 2025, the Court held a Status Conference re: Mediation wherein the parties represented that they had not participated in any sort of mediation.  The Court referred the parties to the Mediation Volunteer Panel.  The Court ordered the mediation to be completed by January 27, 2026 and set a Post-Mediation Status Conference for January 28, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. 

On March 4, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Defendants’ further responses to Requests for Admissions (“RFA”).  The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief. 

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves to compel Defendants to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s RFA Nos. 2-5, 7, 11-20, and 23-28.  Based on Plaintiffs’ exhibits, it appears that Plaintiffs’ RFAs are dated December 27, 2024 (no proof of service attached) and Defendants’ responses are dated January 18, 2025 (no proof of service attached).  (Mot., Ex. A.)  Plaintiffs attach meet and confer emails sent to Defendants dated February 4, 2025 and February 19, 2025, requesting further responses to the RFAs.  (Mot., Ex. N.) 

            No proof of service accompanies the motion papers.  Thus, the Court is not aware of whether Defendants were served with the motion papers.  As such, the Court cannot ascertain whether Defendants were on notice of the motion and had an opportunity to oppose the motion. 

            Thus, the Court continues the hearing on the motion to allow Plaintiffs time to serve Defendants.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendants’ further responses to the RFAs is continued to June 20, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.  Any opposition and reply brief shall be filed and served pursuant to code.   

Plaintiffs shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: May 9, 2025                                                            ___________________________

                                                                              John J. Kralik

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court