Judge Walter P. Schwarm, Case 30-2021-01205140 2022-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2021-01205140, Date: 2022-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s (Jorge Padilla) unopposed Motion to Deem Facts Admitted from Defendant Aurora Ann Garcia (Motion), filed on 8-11-22 under ROA No. 41, is DENIED without prejudice.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, states, in part, “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). . . [¶] (b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010.)”

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(c), provides, “Proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for the hearing.”

The court’s record does not indicate that Plaintiff filed a proof of service of the Motion no later than five court days before the 12-20-22 hearing on the Motion. Therefore, Plaintiff has not complied with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1330(c).

Additionally, it is unclear whether Plaintiff served Defendant with “Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission to Defendant Aurora Ann Garcia Set One” (Requests) at the correct mailing address. (Cancilla Decl., ¶ 3 and Exhibit A.) Pursuant to Defendant’s Answer to the Complaint, filed 10-5-21 under ROA No. 12, Defense counsel’s mailing address is as follows: 11900 North 26^th Street, Suite 200, Edinburg, Texas, 78539. Defense counsel’s address for personal service is 333 S. Anita Drive, Suite 625, Orange, California 92868.

Exhibit A attached to the Motion indicates that Defense counsel was served with the Requests on 3-30-22 at the Orange, California address by mail. (Cancilla Decl., ¶ 3 and Exhibit A.) There is no indication that Defense counsel was also served at the mailing address identified in the Answer.

Exhibit B attached to the Motion is a meet and confer letter dated 7-20-22 from Plaintiff’s counsel to Defense counsel addressed to the Edinburg, Texas address. (Cancilla Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit B.) The meet and confer letter provides in pertinent part, “On another issue. This office propounded discovery upon your client served to your office on March 30, 2022. We have received no responses. I have enclosed copies of the proof of service and discovery propounded.” It is unclear from this letter whether Defense counsel was served with the Requests on 7-20-22.

Since Plaintiff did not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(c) and does not appear to have served the Requests on 3-30-22 to the correct mailing address for defense counsel, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s (Jorge Padilla) Motion to Deem Facts Admitted from Defendant Aurora Ann Garcia, filed on 8-11-22 under ROA No. 41, without prejudice.

Court Clerk is to give notice.