Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV29368, Date: 2025-05-28 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT  (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.  4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) 
IMPORTANT:  In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely.  The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited.  The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. 
ALSO NOTE:  If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar.  THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 21STCV29368    Hearing Date: May 28, 2025    Dept: 29

Ramirez v. City of Compton
21STCV29368
Motion of Defendant Maria Antimo for Order Deeming Plaintiff Erica Cueva Hernandez to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One)
Motion of Defendant Reymundo Antimo for Order Deeming Plaintiff Erica Cueva Hernandez to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set One)

Tentative

The motions are granted.

Background

On August 9, 2021, Lloyd Ramirez (“Ramirez”) and Erica Cueva Hernandez (“Hernandez”) filed a complaint against City of Compton (“City”) and Does 1 through 100 for (1) dangerous condition of public property, (2) violation of mandatory statutory duty, (3) violation of mandatory statutory duty, (4) general negligence, (5) premises liability, and (6) general negligence – loss of consortium, all arising out of a scooter accident occurring on September 17, 2020 on the sidewalk near 1015 E. Pine Street in Compton.

On November 8, 2021, City filed an answer.

On October 4, 2022, counsel was relieved as to Plaintiff Hernandez.  Since that time, Plaintiff Hernandez has been a self-represented party.

On May 11, 2023, Plaintiff Lloyd Ramirez amended the complaint to name Maria Antimo as Doe 81, Raymundo Antimo as Doe 82, and Reymundo Antimo as Doe 83.

On August 21, 2023, Maria Antimo and Reymundo Antimo (collectively “Defendants”) filed an answer to the complaint and a cross-complaint against City and Roes 1 through 20.

On September 25, 2023, City filed an answer to the cross-complaint.

On April 14, 2025, Defendants filed these motions for deemed-admitted orders. 

No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

A party must respond to requests for admission within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd.(a).) If a party to whom requests for admission are directed does not provide a timely response, the propounding party “may move for an order that … the truth of [the] matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for such a motion, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2033.280; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).)  In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

The court “shall” make the order that the truth of the matters specified in the request be deemed admitted unless the court “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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c); see St. Mary v. Super. Ct. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778-780.)

Discussion

Defendants served Plaintiff Hernandez with Requests for Admission (Sets One), on February 11, 2025. (Petrosyan Decls., ¶ 5, see also Exhs. A.) Plaintiff Hernandez has failed to respond. (Id. ¶ 7)

Defendants need show nothing more.

Accordingly, the motions for deemed-admitted orders are granted.

Defendants do not request sanctions.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motions for deemed-admitted orders.

The Court DEEMS Plaintiff Erica Cueva Hernandez TO HAVE ADMITTED THE TRUTH of the matters specified in the Requests for Admission (Set One) propounded by Defendant Maria Antimo.

The Court DEEMS Plaintiff Erica Cueva Hernandez TO HAVE ADMITTED THE TRUTH of the matters specified in the Requests for Admission (Set One) propounded by Defendant Reymundo Antimo.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.