DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CVP-0249·slo·Civil·Discovery
Hearing about 2 months agoThe motion is granted. The request for sanctions is denied.

Aaron Henson v. Merle Alvarez

Motion to Deem Facts and Documents Admitted

Hearing date
Jul 14, 2026
Department
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$1,035.00

Parties

PlaintiffAaron Henson
DefendantMerle Alvarez

Attorneys

Hushing-Klinefor Defendant

Ruling

Aaron Henson v. Merle Alvarez, 25CVP-0249

Hearing: Motion to Deem Facts and Documents Admitted

Date: July 14, 2026

Aaron Henson (Henson) filed this action against Merle Alvarez (Alvarez) on June 27, 2025. Alvarez filed a general denial in October 2025. On November 17, 2025, Alvarez served written discovery on Henson, which included requests for admissions. Henson’s counsel requested an extension to respond agreeing to a waiver of objections. Counsel for Alvarez granted the extension. Henson, however, failed to respond by the February 26, 2026 deadline.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(c) requires the court to deem the RFAs admitted “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.” No responses have been served. The motion to deem the facts and documents admitted is granted.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(c) further provides, “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 the motion.” Any request for sanctions must identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, as well as specify the type of sanction sought in the notice of motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040, italics added.)

The notice of motion states only that it seeks “mandatory sanctions.” The last sentence of the supporting memorandum states, “Plaintiff [sic] asks the Court to grant this motion, with $1,035.00 in sanctions.” Again, the request for sanctions does not state against whom the sanctions are sought. It is only the last paragraph of counsel’s supporting declaration which states Alvarez seeks sanctions “against the Plaintiff.” (Hushing-Kline, ¶ 11.) The request for sanctions is denied for failure to give proper notice of the request.

ORDER (PROPOSED)

The motion is granted. The request for sanctions is denied.

1

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share