TAYLOR, et al v RITCHIE

TAYLOR, et al v RITCHIE

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS ADMITTED

This case involves a property dispute between Plaintiffs Kelly and Matthew Taylor (“Plaintiffs”) and Lavina Richie (“Defendant.”) Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted. Defendant has not filed an opposition.

On February 23, 2026, Plaintiffs served, by mail, “Plaintiff Kelley Taylor’s Request for Admissions to Defendant Lavina Ritchie, Set One 1” (“RFA”) on Defendant. (Declaration of Justin P. Swierczek (“Swierczek Decl.”) ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) Defendant never responded nor communicated with Plaintiffs’ counsel about the RFAs. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 5.)

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. section 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.

Further, the Court shall deem the facts admitted as truth, unless it finds that the party to whom the RFAs were 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).)

A party moving to compel initial responses under this section is not required to meet and confer. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

Plaintiffs served Defendant with RFAs on February 23, 2026. Defendant has not responded to the RFAs and has not filed any opposition to this motion.