HARRIS vs TURNER-RILEY, et al.

26CV189299: HARRIS vs TURNER-RILEY, et al. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted filed by RUSSELL D. HARRIS (Plaintiff) CRS# 693190974679 in Department 511

Tentative Ruling - 08/27/2026 Lupe Garcia

The Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted filed by RUSSELL D. HARRIS on 08/06/2026 is Granted.

NOTICE: All attorneys and unrepresented parties who contest the tentative ruling and request an opportunity to present their arguments at the hearing must notify all other parties of their intention to appear by telephone or in person no later than the day before the hearing, by 4:00 p.m. PT. Parties and attorneys must also formally indicate their objection on eCourt and by sending an email message to the Department 511 clerk at Dept511@alameda.courts.ca.gov. The parties and attorneys must clearly indicate in their email messages the name of the case and the case number. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the Court if the Court has not directed oral argument by its tentative ruling and notice of a party’s intent to appear is not received by the deadline. See California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1) and Alameda County Superior Court Local Rule 3.30(d).

The motion of Plaintiff Russell D. Harris for an order establishing that his requests for admission to Defendant April Wanda Dee Riley, set one (nos. 1-7), are deemed admitted, pursuant to CCP §§ 1170.8 and 2033.280(b), is GRANTED.

Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendants Marion S. Turner-Riley, April Wanda Dee Riley and Sabrina Cupid for unlawful detainer on May 22, 2026. Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer claim is based on his acquisition of title to the property located at 51 Elysian Fields Drive, in Oakland, at a trustee’s sale on April 9, 2026, and the subsequent perfecting of title on April 28, 2026. See CCP § 1161a(b)(3). Defendant Turner-Riley is the former owner of the property and the trustor of the deed of trust executed on November 19, 2021. Defendants April Wanda Dee Riley and Sabrina Cupid are allegedly the daughters of Turner-Riley.

On July 21, 2026, Plaintiff served the subject requests for admission on Defendant by overnight mail. Plaintiff mailed the requests for admission to Defendant by using the address on the caption of Defendant’s Answer to Complaint, P.O. Box 2141, Oakland, CA 94614. The Court has reviewed the requests for admission attached to the declaration of Plaintiff’s attorney, Matthew H. Aguirre. The Court finds that the requests are reasonably drawn and seek information from Defendant that is relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. See CCP § 2017.010. Defendant failed to serve her responses to the requests for admission by the July 28, 2026 deadline. See CCP §§ 1013(c) and 2033.250(b).

Plaintiff has made the required showing that his attorneys served the requests for admission on Defendant April Wanda Dee Riley by overnight mail to the address provided by Defendant on her Answer to Complaint. Defendant still had not served her responses when Plaintiff filed his motion on August 6, 2026. The Court is required to grant Plaintiff’s motion based on its finding that the requests for admission were properly served and Defendant failed to serve any responses 26CV189299: HARRIS vs TURNER-RILEY, et al. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted filed by RUSSELL D. HARRIS (Plaintiff) CRS# 693190974679 in Department 511 to them. See CCP § 2033.280(b).

The Court declines to deny Plaintiff’s motion based on Defendant’s unsupported claim that she did not receive the requests for admission in the mail. Defendant’s claim of invalid service, alone, is not sufficient to justify the issuance of an order relieving Defendant of her obligation to serve timely responses. See CCP § 2033.280(a)(2) (responding party must file a motion seeking relief from waiver of objections with supporting evidence). Plaintiff has established that the requests were sent to the Post Office Box address used by Defendant for her Answer to Complaint.

Defendant is advised that she must identify her business or residence address on the caption of the Answer and not simply a Post Office Box. See Rule of Court 2.111(1). Defendant’s failure to provide Plaintiff with her business or residence address deprives him of the right to serve her with pleadings, discovery or motion papers by personal service. Finally, the Court declines to deny the motion based on Defendant’s conclusory statement in paragraph 7 of her declaration that she served responses after Plaintiff filed his motion that substantially comply with the requirements set forth in CCP § 2033.220.

Defendant did not attach the subsequently served responses to her declaration. Plaintiff’s attorney states under penalty of perjury that his office did not receive any late responses from Defendant.

Plaintiff’s request that the Court order Defendant to pay a monetary sanction in the sum of $520.00, pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.030(a) and 2033.280(c), is GRANTED. Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of the reasonably incurred attorney’s fees as the prevailing party on the motion. Plaintiff’s attorney established that his $400.00 hourly billing rate is reasonable when compared with the rates charged by other landlord-tenant attorneys in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Court finds that counsel reasonably spent 1.3 hours drafting the motion, reviewing Defendant’s opposition, and drafting the reply to the opposition. Defendant shall have until September 23, 2026 to pay the discovery sanction by sending a check in the sum of $520.00 to Plaintiff’s attorneys in Southern California by mail.

The Court will prepare the order. The court clerk will deliver a copy of the order to the parties. Plaintiff shall file and serve the notice of entry of order no later than September 4, 2026.