Plaintiff's motion for order that matters in RFA be deemed admitted
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JULY 30, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE NOT POSTED IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES
Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing with two exceptions: (1) in unopposed matters where the moving party has provided a detailed proposed order or JCC form of order, or (2) where the tentative is simply to “grant”. Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.
No. 25CV03336
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. v. SIMMONS
(UNOPPOSED) PLAINTIFF JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.’S MOTION FOR ORDER THAT MATTERS IN RFA BE DEEMED ADMITTED
The unopposed motion is granted. The Court deems admitted all matters specified in the requests for admission, set one. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) This will be the order of the Court unless defendant serves, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admissions that is in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.
“If a party to whom requests for admission have been directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction pursuant to Section 2023.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Plaintiff demonstrated it served a set of requests for admission on defendant Stefani Simmons on December 30, 2025. No responses have been served to date. (Suman Declaration, ¶¶ 2-3, Exhibit 1.) Defendant also failed to file any opposition to this motion, despite a record of proper service.
Plaintiff did not request sanctions.