DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25-CLJ-06986·sanmateo·Civil·Civil
Hearing about 2 months agoDENIED without prejudice

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. VS. RENALIN SALVADICO

Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Deeming the Truth of the Matters Specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions as Admitted

Hearing date
Jul 22, 2026
Department
28
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffWELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
DefendantRENALIN SALVADICO

Attorneys

JON O. BLANDAfor Plaintiff
PRO SEfor Defendant

Ruling

JULY 22, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR Judge NICOLE S. HEALY, DEPARTMENT 28 ________________________________________________________________________

02:00 PM LINE 12 25-CLJ-06986 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. VS. RENALIN SALVADICO

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. JON O. BLANDA RENALIN SALVADICO PRO SE

Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Deeming the Truth of the Matters Specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions as Admitted

TENTATIVE RULING:

The unopposed motion is DENIED without prejudice for lack of sufficient proof that defendant was given notice of the hearing date. The proof of service indicates the moving papers were served on defendant by mail on February 26, 2026, the same day the motion was filed. At the time of filing, the hearing date was changed from July 1, 2026, to July 22, 2026. It is unclear whether the notice served was the original or amended version. To date, the court’s record does not reflect the filing and service of an amended notice.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, plaintiff’s counsel 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 Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.

POSTED: 3:00 PM

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