Motion to Deem Admitted
(Beverly Hills Courthouse: Dept. 207) August 17, 2026 DEPARTMENT 207 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Case Number: 24SMCV01122 Hearing Date: August 17, 2026 Dept: 207 TENTATIVE RULING DEPARTMENT | 207 | HEARING DATE | August 17, 2026 | CASE NUMBER | 24SMCV01122 | MOTION | Motion to Deem Admitted | MOVING PARTY | Plaintiff California Lawyers Group LLP | OPPOSING PARTY | none | MOTION
This case arises from a dispute concerning an attorney contingency fee. On March 11, 2024, Plaintiff California Lawyers Group, LLP ("Plaintiff") filed suit against Defendants Mahavir Mehta; Activor Corporation; Actiogen Corp; Chanda Zaveri; Chanda C. Bhuwalka; and Chanda, LLC ("Defendants") alleging ten causes of action as follows: 1. Breach Of Contract; 2. Quantum Meruit;
3. Reasonable Value Of Services; 4. Money Had And Received; 5. Conversion; 6. Tortious Interference With Contractual Relations; 7. Aiding And Abetting; 8. Declaratory Relief; 9. Equitable Lien; and 10. Constructive Trust.
Plaintiff now moves for an order deeming admitted the matters stated in its first set of Requests for Admission ("RFA") propounded to Defendant Mehta. The motion is unopposed.
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (a), "[i]f a party to whom requests or admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product[.]" (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280, subd. (a).)
Where a party fails to respond to requests for admissions, the propounding 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.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280, subd. (b).)
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.
It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280, subd. (c).)
I. Deem Admitted
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?”
On June 17, 2026, counsel for Plaintiff reached out to counsel for Mehta in an attempt to resolve the matter. Mehta's counsel responded, and Plaintiff agreed to a 1-week extension to facilitate Mehta providing verified, substantive responses to the RFA. (Brown Decl. P.P. 13-15.)
As of July 15, 2026, when Plaintiff's counsel signed the declaration in support of the motion, no such responses had been received. (Brown Decl. P. 19.)
However, as explained in the attorney Declaration of Daniel A. Fonda filed on August 13, 2026 in connection with Mehta's ex parte application for relief from default, Fonda was engaged only for a limited scope representation of Mehta, that did not include general discovery practice. (See Fonda Decl. P. 2 and Ex. A thereto; see also Notice of Limited Scope Representation filed May 15, 2025 [requiring all service be effectuated on both Fonda and Mehta directly at the address provided].)
As such, service of the RFA on Fonda did not effectuate service on Mehta. Moreover, the Court finds that the Motion was not served on Mehta. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion as procedurally defective.
II. Sanctions
Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Mehta in the amount of $3,960, representing six and a half (6.5) hours of time incurred preparing the instant motion at an hourly rate of $600, plus the $60 filing fee for the motion. (Brown Decl. P. 22.)
However, because the Court denies Plaintiff's request to deem the matters admitted, due to lack of proper service, the Court similarly denies Plaintiff's request for sanctions.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Because neither the RFA nor the Motion was not properly served on Mehta, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion in its entirety. Plaintiff shall provide notice of this ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.
DATED: August 17, 2026 _________/s/__________________ Michael E. Whitaker Judge of the Superior Court
Case Number: 25SMCV04654 Hearing Date: August 17, 2026 Dept: 207 TENTATIVE RULING DEPARTMENT 207 HEARING DATE August 17, 2026 CASE NUMBER 25SMCV04654 MOTION Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Entry of Default and Default Judgment and Quash Service