DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CV0006115·marin·Civil·Collection
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED

CAPITAL ONE, N.A. vs. DAVID HURWITZ

MOTION – OTHER: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF TRUTH OF FACTS TO BE DEEMED ADMITTED

Hearing date
Jul 15, 2026
Department
H
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Monetary amounts referenced

$4,413.89

Parties

PlaintiffCAPITAL ONE, N.A.
DefendantDAVID HURWITZ

Ruling

Plaintiff Capital One, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) filed this discovery motion requesting further responses to interrogatories, and that the court deem admitted the admission requests served on Defendant David Hurwitz (“Defendant”). According to Plaintiff’s declaration, Requests for Admission were served on December 10, 2025. This discovery consisted of eight requests for admission including admissions that Defendant applied for the subject credit account and agreed to its terms and conditions, and that he breached those terms by failing to make minimum payments, which resulted in a balance of $4,413.89 owed to Plaintiff. Defendant appeared at a case management conference and was referred to the self-help center for assistance. However, he has not responded to the discovery.

As to this motion, a notice of hearing was served on Defendant and again, there was no response. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54, subd. (c).) Failure to oppose a motion may also lead to the presumption that [plaintiff] has no meritorious arguments. (See Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481, 489, disapproved of by Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, on other grounds.)

In light of the above, the court shall grant Plaintiff’s motion and deem the requests for admission to be admitted.

All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11.

The Zoom appearance information for July, 2026 is as follows:

https://marin-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615487764?pwd=Ob4B5J7LLKcpnkxzJjjEOSHNzEGafG.1

Meeting ID: 161 548 7764 Passcode: 502070

If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling 1-669-254-5252 and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on the Court’s website: marin.courts.ca.gov

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