Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC04987, Date: 2023-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC04987     Hearing Date: May 1, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      Motion Deeming Requests for Admissions Admitted

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Upgrade Grantor Certificate Trust 2019 1

RESP. PARTY:         None

Motion Deeming Requests for Admissions Admitted

(CCP § 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED

SERVICE: 

[¿] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 [OK]

[¿] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 [OK]

[¿] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     [OK]

OPPOSITION:          NONE

REPLY:                     NONE

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On August 1, 2022, Plaintiff Upgrade Grantor Certificate Trust 2019 1 (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Ryo Miyamoto (“Defendant”), alleging breach of written contract for failing to repay a loan.  Defendant filed an answer on February 2, 2023.

            On March 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order Deeming Requests for Admissions to Defendant Admitted (the “Motion”).  No opposition has been filed.

II.              Discussion

Under Code of Civil Procedure 2033.280(b), failure to respond to requests for admission in a timely manner allows the requesting party to “move for an order that…the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted” by the party that failed to respond.  The requesting party’s motion must be granted by the court, “unless [the court] 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(c)).  By failing to timely respond, the party to whom the requests are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Pro. § 2033.280(a).)

Plaintiff served Requests for Admissions, Set One, on Defendant via U.S. Mail on February 7, 2023.  (D’Anna Decl. ¶ 2).  Responses were due no later than March 14, 2023. (Id.).  As of the date of the filing of the Motion, Defendant has not responded to the Requests for Admission.  (Id. at ¶ 3). 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that it has propounded requests for admission on Defendant and Defendant has not provided any responses. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Deeming its Requests for Admissions Admitted is GRANTED.

III.            Conclusion & Order

Plaintiff’s Motion Deeming Requests for Admissions Admitted is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.