UHG I LLC vs Travis Fong

Case No. 25CV463382 Motion for Order to Deem Admissions Admitted

I. BACKGROUND Before the court is Plaintiff UHG I LLC (“UHG”) motion for requests for admissions (“RFA”) to be deemed admitted against Defendant Travis Fong that was filed on October 20, 2025. No proof of service of the motion to the defendant was submitted.

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) opposition papers were due on June 30, 2026. No opposition papers were filed. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (California Rule of Court Rule 8.54(c); Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410). 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).

The Court has carefully reviewed the moving papers, including: Plaintiff’s notice of motion, memorandum of points and authorities in support of UHG’s motion; Declaration of Jomari Lucero in support and Exhibit A, and proof of service (totaling 10 pages), as well as the pleadings.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. PROCEDURAL VIOALTION Plaintiff UHG’s motion was not accompanied by a proof of service to defendant Travis Fong. Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 and California Rule of Court rule 3.1300 specifically provides that a proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for the hearing. Plaintiff’s moving papers provide a proof of service of the request for admissions that were served on July 7, 2025, indicating mail service. However, the moving papers for an order to deem admissions admitted was not accompanied by a proof of service. The Court cannot consider the merits of the motion absent proof of service of the moving papers. The Court notes that no opposition papers were filed, but absent a filing of timely proof of service, the Court cannot consider that the defendant deemed consent to granting of the motion.

B. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 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 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). 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 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 On July 7, 2025, Plaintiff served Defendant Travis Fong with initial discovery, including a request for admissions.(Exhibit A; Declaration of Lucero). The plaintiff provides a proof of service of the RFA on that same date via mail service. (Id.). Per Plaintiff, responses were due on August 26, 2025. (Declaration of Lucero). No responses were produced and the plaintiff sent a meet-and-confer letter. (Exhibit B; Declaration of Lucero).

Plaintiff field this motion for an Order to Deem Admissions Admitted. However, as noted above in the procedural violation portion, the plaintiff did not file a proof of service of this motion as required under Code of Civil

Procedure section 1005 or Rule of Court, rule 3.1300. No opposition papers were filed, but given the failure to file a proof of service of the motion, the Court cannot consider the merits of the motion.

IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. The Court will prepare the formal Order.

Calendar Lines # 6 Case Name Daniel Kelly vs Ford Motor Company et al