Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC04766, Date: 2023-12-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC04766    Hearing Date: December 18, 2023    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Monday, December 18, 2023

Case Name:                             PAGAYA AI DEBT GRANTOR TRUST 2022 1 v. KARINA SANTOS

Case No.:                                23STLC04766

Motion:                                   Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Pagaya AI Debt Grantor Trust 2022 1

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Plaintiff Pagaya AI Debt Grantor Trust 2022 1’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

On July 28, 2023, Plaintiff Pagaya AI Debt Grantor Trust 2022 1 (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Karina Santos (“Santos”) for breach of written contract.

On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant to deem request for admissions to Defendant admitted (the “Motion”). No opposition was filed. 

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Plaintiff seeks to have its request for admissions, set one, admitted based on Defendant’s failure to respond.

OPPOSITION

            None filed.

REPLY

            None filed.

ANALYSIS

I.          Legal Standard

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).) “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] 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 under Chapter 7.” (Id. at subd. (b).) A motion dealing with the failure to respond, rather than with inadequate responses, does not require the requesting party to meet and confer with the responding party. (Deymer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4 [disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973]. There is no time limit within which a motion to have matters deemed admitted must be made. (Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)

II.        Discussion

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel’s office served Defendant with Requests for Admission, Set One, on September 29, 2023 via regular mail. (D’Anna Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) As of the date this Motion was filed, Plaintiff had not received any responses or heard anything concerning the discovery. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted against Defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

The Court notes that Plaintiff does not request sanctions.

III.       Conclusion

            For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Pagaya AI Debt Grantor Trust 2022 1’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted is GRANTED.