Motion to Deem the Truth of the Matters Specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admission, Set No. (1), Admitted and Conclusively Established
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
that it properly served a 3-day Notice to Pay or Vacate in 30 Days pursuant to the CARES Act on the Defendant on 2/12/2026, and the Notice contained all the required elements under CCP § 1161(2). The burden then shifts to the Defendants to establish any affirmative defenses to the unlawful detainer action. On May 29, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Deem Request for Admission, Set One, Admitted (ROA 35). On June 10, 2026 the Court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion and ordered “the Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Admitted the Facts Set Forth In Plaintiff's Request for Admission Set One be and hereby is granted and that the truth of all specified matters, and the genuineness of all specified documents, in the First Set of Requests for Admission, propounded by Plaintiff and served on Defendant Lana Ostrowski on May 21, 2026, be deemed admitted.” (ROA 38) There are no affirmative defenses that the Defendant could establish under the law.
Therefore, the Plaintiff has established there are no triable issues of material facts and judgment for the Plaintiff is warranted in this matter.
The Court awards possession of the property located at 632 Hayes Street, Irvine, CA 92620, County of Orange. The lease is forfeited. Judgment applies to all unknown occupants, subtenants, or claimants.
The Court awards monetary damages to the Plaintiff as follows: Past Due Rent: $844.62 Holdover Damages: $5,733.40 (109 days at $52.60 a day) Attorney’s Fees & Cost: $837.90 Total Judgment: $9,415.92
The Plaintiff is ordered to file a judgment form reflective of the Court’s orders and serve notice of entry of judgment on the Defendants.
4 30-2026-01561663 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on FC Orange Associates the Pleadings (ROA 75) and Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 121). LP vs. Borden The Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
The Court notes that the pretrial hearing is set for June 26, 2026, and the jury trial is set for June 29, 2026. There is also a Motion for Summary Judgment (ROA 118) filed by the Defendant on 6/22/2026, which is calendared for July 10, 2026. Counsel are to advise the Court whether they are prepared to proceed with the pretrial and jury trial dates, or whether they request that the matter be set after the motion for summary judgment.
5 30-2026-01565351 The Court has read and considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem the Truth of Regency Palms, LP vs. the Matters Specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admission, Set No. (1), Riccobono Admitted and Conclusively Established (ROA 59).
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The Court takes Judicial Notice of the 6/12/2026 Minute Order (ROA 56).
As reflected in ROA 56, Plaintiff previously filed a Motion to Deem the Truth of the Matters Specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admission, Set No. 1, Admitted and Conclusively Established (ROA 30). That motion was set for hearing on June 12, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. Although Defendant appeared at the
hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear. Consequently, the Court took the motion off calendar due to the moving party’s nonappearance.
On June 15, 2026, Plaintiff filed the present motion (ROA 59), which is substantially identical to the motion previously filed as ROA 30. The motion references Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, stating that they are “attached and incorporated hereto.” However, no exhibits were attached to or filed with ROA 59.
Further, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(a) and (b), require that a memorandum of points and authorities accompany any motion. The rule expressly provides that the Court may construe the absence of a memorandum or supporting evidentiary documents as an admission that the motion lacks merit and may deny the motion on that basis.
Accordingly, because Plaintiff failed to file the exhibits referenced in the motion as required by the California Rules of Court, Plaintiff has not provided an adequate factual basis for the relief requested. The motion is therefore DENIED.
6 Ocean Breeze Villas On 6/12/2026, the Motion to Vacate was continued at the request of specially vs. Floridia appearing counsel for the Plaintiff, Kevin Mello, to 6/24/2026. Defendant filed Proof of Service by Mail (ROA 55) that Plaintiff was mailed notice of the Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment on 6/1/2026.
The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment (ROA 51) and Declaration in Support of the Motion (ROA 52).
The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Application for and Renewal of Judgment (ROA 35), Proof of Service by Mail (ROA 41), Memorandum of Costs After Judgment (ROA 43), Writ of Execution (ROA 44), Writ of Possession Returned – Wholly Satisfied (ROA 22), Writ (07/11/2018 Issued) (ROA 32), and Declaration of Address Verification (ROA 47).
California Code of Civil Procedure § 683.170(a), states “The renewal of a judgment pursuant to this article may be vacated on any ground that would be a defense to an action on the judgment, including the ground that the amount of the renewed judgment as entered pursuant to this article is incorrect, and shall be vacated if the application for renewal was filed within five years from the time the judgment was previously renewed under this article.” California Code of Civil Procedure §683.160(a) states, “The judgment creditor shall serve a notice of renewal of the judgment on the judgment debtor.
Service shall be made personally or by first-class mail and proof of service shall be filed with the court clerk. The notice shall be in a form prescribed by the Judicial Council and shall inform the judgment debtor that the judgment debtor has 60 days within which to make a motion to vacate or modify the renewal.”
The original address of the premises subject to the unlawful detainer proceedings was 6401 Warner Ave. #525, Huntington Beach, CA 92647, based on the Writ of Possession (ROA 22), which was filed on 9/30/2015.