Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts be Deem Admitted
an amended complaint.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-24-001460 - CITIBANK NA vs FIGUEROA, MONICA - Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts be Deem Admitted - GRANTED, and unopposed.
On June 29, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for order that matters in request for admission of truth of facts be deemed admitted. There is no opposition on file. "If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he 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[.]" (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280.) "The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280(c).)
Plaintiff's declaration states that Plaintiff served by mail its first set of requests for admissions on defendant on October 20, 2025, and received no response. Plaintiff requests that the truth of all specified facts in the requests for admission be deemed admitted. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, Plaintiff's unopposed motion is GRANTED. The Court intends to sign the proposed order Plaintiff submitted in connection with its motion.
CV-25-012482 - KOURY, ANITA vs FORD MOTOR COMPANY - a) Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint- DENIED; b) Defendant's Motion to Compel Depositions of Plaintiffs, Request for Sanctions of $750.00 - GRANTED in part, DENIED in part.
a) For the reasons set forth below, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. On May 20, 2026, Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that Plaintiffs' third and fourth causes of action of the First Amended Complaint fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Plaintiffs opposed and Defendant replied.
Third Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment
"The required elements for fraudulent concealment are (1) concealment or suppression of a material fact; (2) by a defendant with a duty to disclose the fact; (3) the defendant intended to defraud the plaintiff by intentionally concealing or suppressing the fact; (4) the plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would have acted differently if the concealed or suppressed fact was known; and (5) plaintiff sustained damage as a result of the concealment or suppression of the material fact." (Rattagan v.
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?”
Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 17 Cal.5th 1, 40.) "The requirement of specificity in a fraud action against a corporation requires the plaintiff to allege the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written." (Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157.)
Pleading fraud with specificity
Defendant argues that the fraudulent concealment cause of action does not satisfy the requisite specificity required to plead fraud. "There are certain exceptions to the particularity requirement." (Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1, 20 disapproved on another ground by Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310.) " 'Less specificity is required when 'it appears from the nature of the allegations that the defendant must necessarily possess full information concerning the facts of the controversy.' ' " (Ibid.)
Here, the FAC satisfies the requirement of specificity to state a fraudulent concealment action. Courts have explained that the requirement of specificity in fraud actions "is intended to apply to affirmative misrepresentations" rather than concealment or nondisclosure. (Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384, as modified on denial of reh'g (Mar. 18, 2009) .) The FAC alleges that Ford--through at least its marketing materials, salespersons, and repair representatives--concealed and/or failed to disclose material information regarding known defects with the