WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. VS RICHARD QUREISHI

July 14, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 35 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

2:00 PM LINE 11 26-CLJ-00843 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. VS RICHARD QUREISHI

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. STEPHANIE RAMOS RICHARD QUREISHI PRO SE

MOTION FOR AN ORDER DEEMING THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS SPECIFIED IN PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AS ADMITTED

TENTATIVE RULING:

The court DENIES without prejudice plaintiff and Wells Fargo Bank’s unopposed motion to deem facts admitted for failure to provide proper notice to defendant Richard Qureishi of the hearing.

In the notice of motion, plaintiff put the date of July 2, 2026 as the hearing date. Then the clerk’s office changed the hearing date to July 14, 2026. The court file shows a proof of service filed May 19, 2026, the same date of the filing but endorsed filed-documents are not returned the same day they are filed. Thus, the notice sent to defendant did not have the correct date.

There is no amended proof of service in the court file. Therefore, defendant did not receive proper notice of the hearing date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(b)(1)) and, therefore, the court must deny the motion because it lacks jurisdiction to hear it. (Diaz v. Professional Community Management, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190, 1204–1205 [“court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a motion that has not been properly noticed for hearing on the date in question.”].)

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, counsel for plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.