SECOND CHANCE ORGANIZATION LLC vs FORECLOSURE EXPERTS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required

26CV003582: SECOND CHANCE ORGANIZATION LLC vs FORECLOSURE EXPERTS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to have the Truth of all Matters Set Forth in it's Requests for Admission, Set One in Department 16D

to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s 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 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 Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Second Chance Organization LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to deem admitted those matters specified in its requests for admissions to Defendant Willie Patterson (“Defendant”) is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff filed its Verified Complaint for Unlawful Detainer on February 13, 2026. A trial date is not yet set in this matter.

On May 18, 2026, Plaintiff served Defendant with the subject requests for admission, set one, via overnight mail. (Declaration of Andranik Tchapkhanian [“Tchapkhanian Decl.”], ¶ 2, Exhibit 1.) On May 29, 2026, Plaintiff served Defendant with an amended version of the subject requests. (Id., at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff explains that the amended version of the requests fixed a typographical error and left the substance of every individual request unchanged. (Ibid.) Plaintiff represents, that at the time of this motion, and despite meet and confer attempts with Defendant, no responses were provided to the subject discovery. (See Id., ¶¶ 3-5, Exhibits 3 and 4.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.250 subdivision (b) provides:

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), in an unlawful detainer action or other proceeding under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 1159) of Title 3 of Part 3, the party to whom the request is directed shall have at least five days from the date of service to respond, unless on motion of the requesting party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV003582: SECOND CHANCE ORGANIZATION LLC vs FORECLOSURE EXPERTS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to have the Truth of all Matters Set Forth in it's Requests for Admission, Set One in Department 16D

This is an unlawful detainer action. Plaintiff has demonstrated that it has propounded requests for admission on May 18, 2026 and again on May 29, 2026 and that Defendant has failed to provide any responses. Thus, more than five days have passed from the date of service of the requests. Moreover, Defendant has not filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion and thus Defendant has failed to oppose the motion on its merits. A party’s 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, fn.4.)

Accordingly, Plaitniff’s motion to deem admitted is GRANTED unless Defendant serves “before the hearing on the motion” proposed responses that are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. (Code Civ. Proc. §2033.280(c).)

Plaintiff is awarded mandatory monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(c) in the amount of $440.00, representing one hour of attorney time plus the request filing fee. Sanctions to be paid by Defendant no later than August 31, 2026 and if not paid by that date, Plaintiff may prepare for the Court's signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may itself then be enforced in the same manner and with the same force and effect as a money judgment. (See, e.g., 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 defendant 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 Court's 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.

Moving party to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules Court, rule 3.1312.)