By Defendant Jose Aragon for Order Deeming Request for Admissions Admitted; Request for Sanctions
(48) Tentative Ruling
Re: Perez v. Aragon Superior Court Case No. 25CECG05717
Hearing Date: July 14, 2026 (Dept. 403)
Motion: By Defendant Jose Aragon for Order Deeming Request for Admissions Admitted; Request for Sanctions
Tentative Ruling:
To grant defendant Jose Aragon’s motion to deem requests for admissions admitted by plaintiff Ed Perez. The truth of the matters specified in the Request for Admissions, Set One, are to be deemed admitted unless plaintiffs serve, before the hearing, proposed responses to the requests for admission that are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.
To impose monetary sanctions in favor of defendant Jose Aragon and against plaintiff Ed Perez. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Plaintiff is ordered to pay $460.00 in sanctions to Brenda A. Linder Attorney at Law, within 30 days of the clerk’s service of the minute order.
If oral argument is timely requested, such argument will heard be on Thursday July 16, 2026 at 3:30 pm.
Explanation:
Where a party fails to timely respond to a propounding party’s request for admissions, objections are waived and the court must grant the propounding party’s motion requesting that matters be deemed admitted, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests were directed has served, prior to the hearing on the motion, a proposed response that is substantially in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280; see also St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778 (“St. Mary”).) “Substantial compliance” means compliance with respect to “every reasonable objective of the statute.” (Id. at p. 779, internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)
There is relief available for the party who failed to timely respond. The responding party can move the court for relief from waiving objections by (1) serving responses in substantial compliance and (2) demonstrating that the failure to serve responses was the result of mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a)(1) and (2).) By simply serving substantive responses to the requests for admission prior to the hearing date for this motion the court must deny the motion. (
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?”
Request for Admissions, Set One, was served by mail to plaintiff Ed Perez (“Plaintiff”) on January 22, 2026. Plaintiff and defendant Jose Aragon (“Defendant”) agreed to an 6
extension, but Plaintiff failed to serve responses. No opposition has been filed demonstrating any excusable reason for Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the requests for admission. As such, the court intends to grant the motion unless responses to the requests are served before the hearing on the motion.
Sanctions:
The court must impose a monetary sanction against the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to respond necessitated the motion to deem matters admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., §2033.280(c).)
Defendant seeks $460 in sanctions for one hour of time spent on the motion billed at $400 per hour and the $60 filing fee. Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted. Plaintiff Ed Perez is ordered to pay $460.00 to Brenda A. Linder Attorney at Law, within 30 days of the clerk’s mailing of the minute order.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: SMC on July 10, 2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
7