Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 25STCV00632, Date: 2025-06-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV00632    Hearing Date: June 2, 2025    Dept: 45

WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs KELVIN C WHITTIKER

 

plaintiff’s motion for order deeming plaintiff’s first set of requests for admission admitted

 

Date of Hearing:        June 2, 2025                                       Trial Date:       None set

Department:              45                                                        Case No.:        25STCV00632

 

Moving Party:            Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, National Association   

Responding Party:     No opposition  

 

BACKGROUND

 

On January 10, 2025, Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, National Association filed a complaint for breach of contract, account stated, money lent, breach of contract, account stated and money lent against Defendant Kelvin C Whittiker, an individual, aka Kelvin C Whittaker, aka Kelvin C Whittier, aka Kelvin Cornelious Whittik, aka Kanon Whittiker, aka Kelvin Cornelious Whittiker, aka Kevin Whittiker and dba Whittiker Trucking. Plaintiff alleges in 2022, Wells Fargo granted a business line of credit to Defendant; however, Defendant defaulted under the account due to the failure to make required monthly payments.

 

[Tentative] Ruling

 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Deeming Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admission Admitted Propounded on Defendant Kelvin C Whittiker is GRANTED.

 

discussion

 

Plaintiff moves this court for an order that genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Addmission propounded on Defendant Kelvin C Whittiker, an individual, aka Kelvin C Whittaker, aka Kelvin C Whittier, aka Kelvin Cornelious Whittik, aka Kanon Whittiker, aka Kelvin Cornelious Whittiker, aka Kevin Whittiker and dba Whittiker Trucking be admitted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions against Defendant’s counsel in the amount of $860.00.

 

Where there has been no timely response to a request for admission under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.010, the propounding party may move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in the requests and the genuineness of any documents be deemed admitted, as well as a monetary sanction. (CCP §2033.280(b).) The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants that party relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (CCP §2033.280(a)(1)-(2).) The court shall grant the motion “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 … in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (CCP §2033.280(c); St. Mary v. Sup. Ct. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 777-78.) 

 

On February 25, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel served four sets of discovery on Defendant, including Requests for Admissions. (Ramirez-Browning Decl. ¶2, Exh. A.) Defendant has failed to serve any response whatsoever to the discovery within the time permitted by law. (Ramirez-Browning Decl. ¶4.) On April 2, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Defense Counsel. (Ramirez-Browning Decl. ¶5, Exh. B.) Plaintiff’s counsel’s office emailed Mr. Shepard on April 15, 2025, inquiring about the status of discovery. (Ramirez-Browning Decl. ¶6, Ex. C.) Defense counsel indicated that his client has become non-responsive to his calls and emails. (Ramirez-Browning Decl. ¶6, Exh. C.) Plaintiff’s counsel inquired with Defendant’s counsel again on April 22, 2025, but no response was made. (Ramirez-Browning Decl. ¶7, Exh. D.)

 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Deeming Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admission Admitted Propounded on Defendant Kelvin C Whittiker is GRANTED.

 

Sanctions

 

Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $860.00 in attorney fees. The court GRANTS the request for sanctions.





Website by Triangulus