Motion to deem matters admitted; Request for sanctions
A propounding party may ask the court for an order that deems admitted the matters contained in the requests for admission if the receiving party fails to respond to the requests for admission. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(b).) The court shall grant the order unless it finds that the party to whom the requests were directed has served responses in substantial compliance with Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220 before the hearing on the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).)
Defendant served the Requests for Admissions (Set One)) (“RFAs”) on Plaintiff on January 7, 2026. (Chang Dec.) By the time this motion was filed on March 9, 2026, Plaintiff had not responded to the RFAs. (Ibid.)
Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, the court shall grant the motion unless it finds that Plaintiff has served responses in “substantial compliance” with Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220 before the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) Plaintiff did not oppose the motion and there is no evidence that Plaintiff served responses to the RFAs in substantial compliance with the Code. Thus, the recommendation is to grant the motion to the extent it seeks to deem the RFAs admitted.
Sanctions are mandatory for an outright failure to respond to requests for admission. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280
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?”
Defendants seeks monetary sanctions of $804 to account for 2 hours to prepare the motion at an hourly rate of $186, 2 hours of anticipated time to review any opposition and draft a reply and appear at the hearing, and a filing fee of $60. Because the motion was not opposed (and thus no reply was necessary), the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions of $525, calculated from 2.5 hours at $186/hour plus the $60 filing fee. Plaintiff shall pay the sanctions of $525 by August 6, 2026.
Defendant is ordered to give notice. 6 Pacific Sands LLC vs. Cross-Defendant Pacific Sands LLC (“Pacific Sands”) moves for Smith summary judgment on the Cross-Complaint filed by Cross-Complainant Nanette Smith (“Ms. Smith”). For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED. The evidentiary objections filed by Pacific Sands are OVERRULED.
A defendant seeking summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion and burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to negate the plaintiff’s claim. It may do this by demonstrating the claim has no merit, that the plaintiff cannot prove an element of the claim, or that the defendant has a complete defense entitling it to judgment as a matter of
law. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850-51.)
The Cross-Complaint filed by Ms. Smith asserts causes of action for 1) quiet title based on adverse possession, 2) unjust enrichment, and 3) declaratory relief.
Adverse Possession
To obtain title through adverse possession, Ms. Smith must establish that: (1) she actually occupied the Property “under such circumstances as to constitute reasonable notice to the owner,” (2) her possession was “hostile to the owner's title,” (3) she claimed the Property as her own “under either color of title or claim of right,” (4) her possession was “continuous and uninterrupted for five years,” and (5) she paid “all the taxes levied and assessed upon the property during the period.” (Preciado v. Wilde (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 321, 325; Dimmick v. Dimmick (1962) 58 Cal.2d 417, 421; see also Code Civ. Proc. §§ 322– 325.)
Pacific Sands contends the first cause of action for quiet title based on adverse possession fails for two reasons: 1) Ms. Smith cannot establish the element of adverse and continuous use for the required five-year time period, and 2) Ms. Smith cannot properly establish the element of payment of property taxes as she was making such payments as required by the terms of her Sublease.
Pacific Sands is the fee owner of 8041 Ebbtide Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (the (“Property”). (Cross-Defendant’s Material Fact (“CDMF”) 1.) Pacific Sands developed the Property with a home and subleased it to a sublessee in 1963, together with a purchase option. (CDMF 3.) On July 14, 2022, Pacific Sands exercised its own option and acquired the fee interest to the Property. (CDMF 5.) After purchasing the Property, Pacific Sands continued to sublease it to third parties, who remained bound by the terms of the Sublease and the terms of the Land Purchase Option Agreement. (CDMF 6.)
On December 2, 1986, the then sublessees of the Property assigned their interest in the Sublease and the Land Purchase Option Agreement to Stephen Smith (“Mr. Smith”) and Ms. Smith. (CDMF 7.) The Land Purchase Option Agreement provides that Pacific Sands can terminate the option based on payment defaults. (CDMF 8.)
Based on Ms. Smith’s material breaches by not paying amounts owed under the Sublease and Land Purchase Option, on April 30, 2008, Pacific Sands recorded a Notice of Termination of Land Purchase Option Agreement. (CDMF 9.)
31