This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 19 in the Old Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 161 North First Street, San Jose. Any party opposing the tentative ruling must call Department 19 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM Thursday 7 August 2014.  Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 8 August 2014, the motion of Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank (“Plaintiff”) for an order deeming Request for Admissions served on 15 July 2014 Defendant John L. Taft (“Defendant”) was argued and submitted.

Defendants did not file formal opposition to the motion.[1]

The moving papers do not comply with Rule of Court 3.1110(f).

Statement of Facts

This issue arises out of a collection case. Plaintiff sued Defendants Donna M. Taft and John L. Taft for the collection of a debt.

Discovery Dispute

On 17 March 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel served Defendant John L. Taft a second set of Request for Admissions due on 21 April 2014.  Defendant failed to respond.

On 24 April 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant’s counsel regarding the second set of Request for Admissions. The letter provided additional time for Defendant to respond. Yet, to date, Defendant has not responded to or provided any responses.

This motion was filed on 15 July 2014.  In the notice of the motion, Plaintiff states the motion is pursuant to, among other sections, Code of Civil Procedure, § 2033.420 which is authority for the imposition of monetary sanctions.  However, no request was made either in the declaration of counsel or in the memorandum of points and authorities.

Analysis

I. Request for Admissions Deem Admitted

The party to whom requests for admission have been propounded is required to serve a response within 30 days, or on any later date to which the parties have agreed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.250, 2033.260). An additional 5 calendar days are added if the discovery is served by mail within California. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(a).)

However, if the party to whom requests for admissions are directed fails to serve a timely response, that party waives any objection to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(a)). Furthermore, the court shall enter an order deeming requests for admission admitted if the party to whom the requests are directed fails to serve a timely response unless it finds substantially compliant proposed responses have been served before the hearing on the motion. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c); See Tobin v. Oris (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 973, 983).

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions, Set Two, as Admitted is GRANTED.

Order

Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions, Set Two, as Admitted is GRANTED.