Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV03439, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV03439, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV03439 Hearing Date: May 31, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: May 31, 2024¿

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV03439

CASE NAME: Citibank N.A. v. Karen S. Okihara

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Citi Bank, N.A.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Karen S. Okihara (No Opposition)

TRIAL DATE: Not Set.

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion for an Order that Requests be Deemed Admitted Against Plaintiff, Karen S. Okihara

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND¿

A. Factual¿

On October 17, 2023, Plaintiff, Citibank, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant, Karen S. Okihara (“Defendant”) alleging a cause of action for: (1) Common Counts. Plaintiff alleges that it lent money in the amount of $25,036.04 to Defendant and that Defendant still owes this amount in unpaid debt despite Plaintiff’s demand.

On March 19, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Admission. Plaintiff contends that Defendant has failed to respond to discovery by the date it was due, and has not served any responses even as of the date it filed this motion, or per representations of counsel at the recent Case Management Conference, even as of early May of 2024. As such, Plaintiff has brought this Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted.

B. Procedural

On May 2, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion to Deem the Truth of the Matters Specified in that Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted. To date, no opposition has been filed.

¿II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(c), the court shall make the order deeming the truth of the matters admitted unless the responding party serves before the hearing a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Code Civ. Proc § 2033.220. Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.220 requires that each answer either admits, denies or specifies that the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge. The moving party is not required to meet and confer before bringing such a motion where no response of any kind was received. (Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates, 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395.)¿¿

B. Discussion

Plaintiff’s moving papers indicate that on March 19, 2024, it served its Requests for Admission, Set One on Defendant. However, Plaintiff contends that Defendant has failed to serve any objections, admissions, denials, or any other written responses. Because of this, the Court’s tentative ruling is to GRANT Defendant’s motion. The Court also notes that Defendant is represented by counsel per the single-page Answer filed by said counsel on February 22, 2024. Despite this, Defendant failed to respond to the responses as well as failed to respond via opposition to this motion. However, Plaintiff has attached the Proof of Service of the Request on Defendant’s attorney. As of the day before the hearing, the Court has no evidence of any response to the RFAs nor the motion. Thus, this Court GRANTS this motion and deems the subject RFA to be admitted.

III. CONCLUSION

¿¿

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motions to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted is GRANTED.

¿¿

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.