Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC04379, Date: 2024-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC04379    Hearing Date: April 11, 2024    Dept: 26

MOTION TO DEEM RFA'S ADMITTED

(CCP § 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED

            Loan Asset Issuer II LLC Serious 2020 1’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted is GRANTED.

Background

            On July 12, 2023, Loan Asset Issuer II LLC Serious 2020 1 (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint alleging that Christian Webb (Defendant) signed a Borrower Agreement, was given a monetary loan, and then defaulted the payments to be made back to Plaintiff. The motion before the Court is Loan Asset Issuer II LLC Serious 2020 1’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted (the Motion). No monetary sanctions were requested, and the Motion is unopposed.  

Discussion

Legal Standard

            Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.250, provides, in pertinent part, that “[w]ithin 30 days after service of the request for admissions . . . the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party.” A motion to deem admitted requests for admissions lies based upon a showing of failure to respond timely. (CCP §2033.280(b); Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, disapproved on other grounds by Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 983.) Requests for admissions must be deemed admitted where no responses in substantial compliance was served before the hearing. (CCP §2033.280(c).) As to motions to deem matters admitted, no meet and confer is required. (Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 393, 395, overruled on other grounds by Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 973, 983. Also see Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 904–906, 169 Cal.Rptr. 42 [rejecting argument that state rule of court requiring informal meet and confer applied to motion where no response at all had been made to interrogatory requests, reasoning that because objections had been waived for failure to timely answer, there was “nothing to ‘resolve’ with the meaning” of the rule)].)

Analysis

            Plaintiff provides the Declaration of Laura M. D’Anna (D’Anna Decl.) which states that on December 28, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel propounded Requests for Admissions (Set 1) on Defendant. (D’Anna Decl., ¶ 2.) When no responses were received by the 30-day deadline, Plaintiff filed this Motion. To date, no responses have been served.

Therefore, the Motion is granted.

Conclusion

            Loan Asset Issuer II LLC Serious 2020 1’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.