Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 24STCV05592, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV05592    Hearing Date: February 6, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

 

 

trinton hurt , et al.;

 

Plaintiffs,

 

 

vs.

 

 

2515 thurman llc , et al.;

 

Defendants.

Case No.:

24STCV05592

 

 

Hearing Date:

February 6, 2025

 

 

Time:

10:00 a.m.

 

 

 

[tentative] Order RE:

 

plaintiff’s motion to deem admissions admitted and for sanctions

 

 

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Trinton Hurt

 

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted and for Sanctions

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Trinton Hurt (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order (1) deeming admitted the truth of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, served on defendant 2515 Thurman LLC (“Defendant”), and (2) awarding sanctions in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $970.

The court finds that Plaintiff has not shown that he served the subject Requests for Admission and motion to deem the truth of the matters specified therein admitted on Defendant at the correct address as required.

Plaintiff has submitted a proof of service stating that Defendant was served with the Requests for Admission by mail on November 14, 2024, at the address 850 Monterey Blvd., Apt. 1, Hermosa Beach, California.  (Greer Decl., Ex. B, p. 2.)   Plaintiff served Defendant with this motion by mail on December 27, 2024, at the same address.  ( Dec. 27, 2024 Proof of Service, p. 2.)  However, as of the date of service of the discovery and the pending motion, Defendant had not—and still has not—made an appearance in this action, such that there is no address of record for Defendant.  Thus, the court cannot verify that Plaintiff properly served Defendant with the subject discovery and motion by mail at its address of record.  Further, although counsel for Plaintiff has stated that the discovery was served on “Defendant’s agent for service of process[,]” counsel did not submit evidence in support of that assertion.  (Greer Decl., ¶ 3.)

For the reasons set forth above, the court (1) finds that Plaintiff has not shown that he properly served Defendant with the Requests for Admission, Set One, and the pending motion, and therefore (2) denies Plaintiff’s motion.

ORDER

            The court denies plaintiff Trinton Hurt’s motion to deem admissions admitted and for sanctions.

            The court orders plaintiff Trinton Hurt to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

DATED:  February 6, 2025

 

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court