Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted Set Three
34-2020-00287359-CU-PO-GDS: Ronald L. Curd vs. Marriot International, Inc. 12/04/2025 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted Set Three in Department 53
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.
The Department 53 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.
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?”
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver
34-2020-00287359-CU-PO-GDS: Ronald L. Curd vs. Marriot International, Inc. 12/04/2025 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted Set Three in Department 53
and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Apple Nine Hospital Management, Inc.s and Springhill SMC, LLCs unopposed motion to deem matters admitted (set three) is granted as set forth herein.
No opposition to the motion was filed. A partys failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on the merits of the motion. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)
Defendants motion is GRANTED and the matters at issue are deemed admitted, unless Plaintiff Ronald Curd, Jr. serves, before the hearing on the motion, proposed responses to the subject request for admissions served on April 15, 2025, that are in substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.220. (CCP § 2033.280(c).)
Defendants request for mandatory monetary sanctions is granted. CCP § 2033.280(c) provides that it is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion. The Court has no discretion in this regard, for example, like it does in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories, where it can decline to impose sanctions where it would be unjust. Plaintiff Ronald Curd, Jr. shall pay to Defendants a mandatory monetary sanction in the amount of $205 ($205/hr x 1 hr).
The monetary sanction is to be paid on or before January 4, 2026. If the sanction is not paid by that date, Defendants may prepare for the Courts signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may itself be enforced in the same manner and with the same force and effect as a money judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615 [monetary sanction orders are enforceable through the execution of judgment laws].)
The Court declines to sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers given that it remains undetermined whether the responding party has served or will serve before the hearing on the motion proposed responses that are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure §2033.220. Further, given that §2033.280(c) allows service of substantially code-compliant responses (to avoid admissions) as late as any time before the hearing, the Courts ruling on this motion need not at this time make a finding regarding substantial compliance if such responses are in fact served. No further order in this regard is necessary at this time.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2020-00287359-CU-PO-GDS: Ronald L. Curd vs. Marriot International, Inc. 12/04/2025 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted Set Three in Department 53
The notice of motion includes the incorrect address for the Court. The correct address for Department 53 of the Sacramento Superior Court is 813 6th Street, Sacramento, California 95814. In addition, the notice of motion does not provide notice of the Courts tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Defendants counsel is ordered to notify Plaintiff immediately of the correct address for Department 53 and of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in person, via Zoom or by telephone, in the event Plaintiff appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.