Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: 21STCV30600, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling
DEPARTMENT 19 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
If you desire to submit on a tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 19 before 08:00 a.m. on the day of the motion hearing. The e-mail address for submitting is SMCDept19@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail must contain the case name and number, and that you submit. For example, "Smith v. Jones BC551124, submit". The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent.
PLEASE NOTE, The above e-mail address is only to inform the Court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries or correspondence will not receive a response.
Case Number: 21STCV30600 Hearing Date: May 18, 2023 Dept: 19
After consideration of the briefing filed and oral argument at the hearing, Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, NA’s unopposed Motion for Order: Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admissions, Set One, Be Deemed Admitted is GRANTED.
The Court signs the proposed order filed on December 15, 2022.
Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.
This is a breach of contract action. Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, NA (“Plaintiff”) brings suit against Defendant Peter C Dohm (“Defendant”) alleging the following causes of action:
1. Breach of Agreement;
2. Account Stated;
3. Open Book;
4. Money Lent; and
5. Indebtedness.
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order: Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admissions Be Deemed Admitted (the “Motion”).
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, Plaintiff moves for an order deeming admitted for all purposes at trial the truth of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admission, Set One, nos. 1-11, and the genuineness of Documents Item 1, propounded on Defendant Peter C Dohm.
DISCUSSION
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.250, subdivision (a) provides that “[w]ithin 30 days after service of requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared, unless on motion of the requesting party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250(a).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 provides as follows:
If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:
(a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.
(2) The party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.
(b) 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 (commencing with Section 2023.010).
(c) The court shall make this order, 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.)
As an initial matter, Defendant does not oppose the Motion, thereby consenting to the Court granting it. (See Cal. R. Ct., 8.54(c) [“A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.”].)
The Court finds that Plaintiff served the Request for Admissions, Set One on Defendant on August 5, 2022, but that Defendant has not complied with his obligations to serve responses. (Ramjeet K Brar Decl., ¶¶ 4-5, Ex. A.) Defendant does not oppose the Motion and therefore does not dispute that he has failed to serve responses.
Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED.