Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV16620, Date: 2024-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV16620    Hearing Date: January 17, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion that the Truth of Matters of Defendant Westpark Loans’ Requests for Admission be Deemed Admitted

Moving Party: Defendant Westpark Equity Group, Inc.

Resp. Party:    None

The RFAs Motion is GRANTED.

        The RFAs are DEEMED ADMITTED.

The Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

On July 17, 2023, Plaintiffs Adelina McCloud and Ellina Kelly, in propria persona, filed their Complaint against Defendants P.S. Funding, Inc.; Denise Hayes Spears; Sharif McCloud; Wilmington Trust, N.A.; Westpark Equity Group, Inc. (erroneously sued as “Westpark Loans”); LendMe; Only Escrow; Jorge Lopez; Stewart Title Company; Farzana Maiwandi; FPI Management Company; and Other Persons Unknown Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, Lien or Interest in the Real Property Described in this Complaint Adverse to Plaintiffs. The causes of action arise from an alleged wrong foreclosure, fraud, and conversion.

On August 18, 2023, Defendant Westpark Equity Group, Inc. filed its Answer to the Complaint.

On September 25, 2023, Defendant Denise Haye Spears filed her Answer to the Complaint.

On December 8, 2023, Defendant Westpark Equity Group, Inc. filed its Motion that the Truth of Matters of Defendant Westpark Loans’ Requests for Admission be Deemed Admitted (“RFAs Motion”). In support of its RFAs Motion, Defendant Westpark Equity Group, Inc. concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Thomas P. Aplin; (2) Declaration of R. Scott Clift; and (3) Proof of Service. The RFAs Motion includes a Request for Sanctions.

No oppositions or other responses have been filed to the discovery motions.

ANALYSIS:

I.          Legal Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom the request for admissions is directed within 30 days after service of the request for admissions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).)

If the party fails to serve a timely response, “the party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

The requesting party may then “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 monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)

A court will deem requests admitted, “unless it 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. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

II.       Discussion

A.      The RFAs Motion

Defendant Westpark Equity Group, Inc. moves the Court to enter an order deeming admitted the truth of all maters specified in its two sets of requests for admissions (“RFAs”), which were both served upon Plaintiffs on August 19, 2023. (RFAs Motion, p. 7:10–12; Decl. Aplin, Exh. A.)

        Counsel Defendant Westpark Equity Group, Inc., Thomas P. Aplin, declares that they have not received any responses to the Requests for Admission from Plaintiffs.  The motion is unopposed, and there is no evidence before the Court that would indicate Plaintiffs responded to the RFAs. Rather,

        The Court GRANTS the RFAs Motion.

        The RFAs are DEEMED ADMITTED.

B.      The Request for Sanctions

Defendant Westpark Equity Group, Inc. moves the Court for $4,000.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs. (RFAs Motion, p. 7:10–12.) However, given that Plaintiffs are litigating this matter in propria persona, monetary sanctions would not be appropriate at this time.

The Court DENIES the Request for Sanctions.

III.     Conclusion

The RFAs Motion is GRANTED.

        The RFAs are DEEMED ADMITTED.

The Request for Sanctions is DENIED.