Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. vs vs John Ho

On July 14, 2025, the plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) filed a motion to deem request for admissions (“RFA”) admitted against Defendant John Ho (“Ho”). The motion was accompanied by a proof of service via mail delivery on July 9, 2025.

No opposition papers were filed. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) opposition papers were due on April 29, 2026.

I. BACKGROUND The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s moving papers including, notice of motion and memorandum of points and authorities (totaling 4 pages); Declaration of David Bartley and attached Exhibits 1-2 (totaling 14 pages); proof of service, (totaling 3 pages); and the pleadings.

II. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2033.280: “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 di rected 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 SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

Department 1 Honorable Eunice Lee, Presiding TBD, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: May 12, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.

To contest the ruling, call the Court at (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to also let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling, in accordance with California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) and Local Rule 8D.

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS 7

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).

III. ANALYSIS Plaintiff Wells Fargo served Defendant Ho with RFA, Set One, that contained nine (9) RFA on May 13, 2025 that was accompanied by a proof of service via mail delivery (Declaration of Bartley, p. 1; Exhibit 1). Per Plaintiff, responses were due on or around June 17, 2025 (Id.). Plaintiff did not receive any responses. (Id.). On June 20, 2025, the plaintiff attempted to meet and confer and sent a letter to the defendant regarding the outstanding discovery and an extension of time to respond. (Id., at p. 2; Exhibit 2). Defendant Ho did not provide any responses. (Id.). Plaintiff then filed the present motion for admissions to be deemed admitted on July 14, 2025.

Absent substantial compliance prior to the hearing date, the defendant is entitled to an order deeming the truth of the matter specified and requests that all RFA is deemed admitted. Here, Defendant has not served any responses. Verified responses were due nearly a year ago in June of 2025. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) opposition papers were due on April 29, 2026. No opposition papers were filed. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. California SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

Department 1 Honorable Eunice Lee, Presiding TBD, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: May 12, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.

To contest the ruling, call the Court at (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to also let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling, in accordance with California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) and Local Rule 8D.

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS 8

Rule of Court Rule 8.54c. Failure to oppose a motion leads to the presumption that the plaintiff has no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489). Moving party meets its burden of proof.

IV. SANCTIONS Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(c), the Court shall impose monetary sanctions for failure to timely respond to requests for admission unless the party acted with substantial justification, or the circumstances render imposition of sanctions unjust. The Court must impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney whose failure to serve timely Requests for Admission responses necessitated the motion. Plaintiff does not seek sanctions or provide proof of reasonable fees and cost, Thus, the Court will not impose sanctions.

V. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to deem RFA, set one is GRANTED.

Moving party to prepare the formal Order.