People of the State of California v. US Automotive Protection Services LLC, et al.

TENTATIVE RULINGS People of the State of California v. US Automotive Protection Services LLC, et al.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission to Defendants

Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against Defendants

Hearing Date: August 7, 2026

NOTE RE TENTATIVE RULINGS

Each of these tentative rulings becomes the court’s order, and no hearing shall be held unless one of the parties contests it by following Rule 3.1308 of the California Rules of Court and Monterey County Local Rule 7.9. Those parties wishing to present an oral argument must notify all other parties and the Court no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing; otherwise, NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE PERMITTED, AND EACH TENTATIVE RULING WILL BECOME THE ORDER OF THE COURT AND THE RELATED HEARING VACATED. You must notify the court by email or by calling the Calendar Department at 831-647-5800, extension 3040, before 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Admitted Requests for Admission to Defendants

On October 9, 2025, the People of the State of California (“Plaintiff”) served its first set of Requests for Admission (“RFA”) to Defendant US Automotive Protection Services LLC (“USAPS”). [Hickok Decl. at ¶¶ 3-6 and Exh. 1.] Despite a court order requiring their submission, USAPS has not provided verified further responses to RFAs 3-4, 6-9, 11, and 20-36. [Id. at ¶¶ 7-10 and Exs. 2-3.] Likewise, Defendant Brandon Schrader did not respond to RFAs sent on April 9, 2026. [Id. at ¶¶ 11-14.] Neither USAPS nor Mr. Schrader has responded to Plaintiff’s RFA or opposed Plaintiff’s deemed-admitted motion. [Id. at ¶¶ 10, 12-14.] Therefore, the unopposed motion is GRANTED.

Legal Standard.

The initial penalty for a party’s failure to respond promptly to an RFA is a waiver of any objection to the requests, including those based on privilege or work product protection. [Code Civ Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (a).] Failing to respond to an RFA does not automatically mean admissions. Instead, the propounding party must “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” under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 et seq. [Code Civ.

Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (b).] Specifically, a “court shall” grant a motion to deem request for admission contentions admitted, “unless [the court] 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. § 2033.280, subd. (c).]

Discussion.

On April 22, 2026, the Court ordered USAPS to serve verified further responses to RFAs 3-4, 6-9, 11, and 20-36 within 15 days of receiving the Court’s order. On April 30, 2026, Plaintiff mailed the order to USAPS. Despite 14 weeks passing, USAPS has not provided any responses. Additionally, USAPS has not opposed this motion. According to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290, subdivision (e), these matters are considered admitted due to USAPS’s failure to follow the Court’s motion-to-compel order. As a result, the Court GRANTS this motion, and RFAs 3-4, 6-9, 11, and 20-36 are DEEMED ADMITTED for USAPS.

Mr. Schrader did not provide any verified responses to Plaintiff’s RFA, served on April 9, 2026. [Hickok Decl. at ¶ 11 and Exh. 4.] Mr. Schrader’s failure to serve timely responses requires the Court to deem the RFAs admitted unless substantially compliant responses are served before the hearing. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280.] No opposition has been filed, and no responses have been received. [Hickok Decl. at ¶¶ 12-14.] Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED, and RFAs 1-62 are DEEMED ADMITTED as to Mr. Schrader.

Conclusion.

As stated above, Plaintiff’s deemed-admitted motion is GRANTED. The Court will sign the Proposed Order accompanying the motion.

1