Bly, et al. vs. Marquis Care at Shasta, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0209458 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted: Plaintiffs Laura Bly, Julie Dowell, and David Eatchell, individually and as successors-in-interest to the Estate of Bettie Eatchel seek an order to deem all matters set forth in Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission to Defendants Marquis Care at Shasta, Marquis Companies 1, Inc., Rose Hervagault, Phillip Fogg, Jr. and Lauri Cruz admitted. 1

When a party fails to respond to a request for admission, the requesting party may move for an order deeming the genuineness of documents and the truth of matters specified in the requests admitted. CCP § 2033.280(b). Failure to respond also waives any objections to the discovery propounded. CCP § 2033.280(a). Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses when no responses have been provided does not require the propounding party to demonstrate good cause or that it satisfied a meet-and-confer requirement. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390. Here, Plaintiff’s moving papers sufficiently demonstrate that the discovery was served by mail and email and Defendant has failed to respond within the required time frame.

Defendants’ Opposition concedes that responses were not timely served. Defendants represent that they intend to serve verified responses to the RFAs that are in substantial compliance with CCP 2033.330 before the hearing on this motion. There is no evidence before the Court that they have done so.

Monetary sanctions are mandatory per CCP 2033.280(c). Plaintiff did not request sanctions and did not provide evidence to support the Court’s determination of a reasonable amount. Therefore, no sanctions will be imposed.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One Admitted by Defendants is GRANTED. A proposed order has been lodged and will be executed.

CAPITAL ONE, N.A. VS. WHITMIRE VAZQUEZ