DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV011015·sacramento·Civil·Discovery Motion
Hearing 20 days agoGRANTED

NEWREZ LLC vs MCELHANEY, et al.

Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One, or to Deem Such Requests Admitted

Hearing date
Aug 6, 2026
Department
16C
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$870

Parties

PlaintiffNEWREZ LLC
DefendantBrandon Kyle McElhaney

Attorneys

Brandon J. Mikafor Plaintiff

Ruling

24CV011015: NEWREZ LLC vs MCELHANEY, et al. 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One, or to Deem Such Requests Admitted in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Newrez LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to deem matters admitted (requests for admission, set one) against defendant in pro per Brandon Kyle McElhaney (“Defendant”) is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.

Plaintiff served the subject discovery on Defendant on December 12, 2025. (Declaration of Brandon J. Mika (“Mika Decl.”), ¶ 4.) Defendant failed to respond. (Mika Decl., ¶ 6.)

The Court is required to make this order deeming the requests for admissions admitted, unless Defendant serves on Plaintiff’s counsel and files with the Court, before the hearing on the motion, verified responses to the requests for admission, without objections, that are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(c), the Court imposes a mandatory monetary sanction in the amount of $870 against Defendant. Defendant shall pay the sanction no later than September 6, 2026. If Defendant fails to pay the sanction by such date, then Plaintiff may lodge for the court’s signature a formal order awarding sanctions, which may be enforced as a separate judgment. (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-1475 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the

24CV011015: NEWREZ LLC vs MCELHANEY, et al. 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One, or to Deem Such Requests Admitted in Department 16C

hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011015: NEWREZ LLC vs MCELHANEY, et al. 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One, or to Deem Such Requests Admitted in Department 16C

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL- SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 54 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share