Order of Admissions of Truth Be Deemed Admitted
Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger
Department 5 May 6, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed
4 CVL67207 Capital One, N.A. vs. Raymond M. Albanez 04/24/2025
Capital One, N.A. Attorney: Ruonan Wang
Raymond M. Albanez Case Management Conference Further Motion Hearing - Other for Order of Admissions of Truth Be Deemed Admitted 04/24/2025 Complaint File Tracking 07/09/2025 High Density
Case notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear unless this note indicates that “no appearance is necessary.” Unless directed otherwise, all participants may appear via Zoom: https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Passcode: 123456]. All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are assigned to that department for all pre-trial purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice, parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.
This is a garden-variety collections case. Before the Court this day is an unopposed motion by the plaintiff to secure an order deeming RFAs admitted after defendant failed to provide any response thereto.
RFAs are intended to eliminate the need for proof and to set at rest triable issues so that they will not have to be tried. Stull v. Sparrow (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 860, 865. RFAs may be directed to any matter that is in controversy between the parties: facts, opinions or legal conclusions. See CCP §2033.010; Miller v. American Greetings Corp. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1055, 1066. As noted by one Court of Appeal, “the law governing the consequences for failing to respond to requests for admission may be the most unforgiving in civil procedure.”
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 close review of the moving papers confirms proper service of the discovery and the motion itself, informing this Court that defendant’s silence is more likely than not the product of a misuse of the discovery process. Plaintiff is entitled to the order deeming the RFAs admitted, as well as reimbursement for fees and costs actually and reasonably incurred (though none are sought). The problem, however, is that plaintiff indicates in the moving papers an intention to stand on the moving papers and skip an appearance.
That does not work with RFAs. Why? The safe harbor under CCP §2033.280(c). Pursuant thereto, a substantially-compliant response to the RFAs made at any time before the hearing on the motion will moot the motion almost entirely (sanctions would still recoverable, but plaintiff did not seek those here). See St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778; in accord, Katayama v. Continental Investment Group (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 898, 908. A motion filed March 13 informs the reader that responses were not served by then, but says nothing of the time between then and now.
Plaintiff’s counsel must still confirm that no substantially compliant responses were received prior to the hearing for the order to be effective.
4/30/2026 3:47 pm