DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24-CLJ-01851·sanmateo·Civil·Collections
Hearing in 3 daysDENIED without prejudice

TD BANK USA, N.A VS. KATHREEN IRIS MAYE S. MENDOZA

MOTION FOR ORDER THAT MATTERS IN REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF TRUTH OF FACTS BE DEEMED ADMITTED

Hearing date
Sep 8, 2026
Department
4
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffTD BANK USA, N.A
DefendantKATHREEN IRIS MAYE S. MENDOZA

Attorneys

Ruling

September 8, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 11 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

2:00 PM LINE 4 24-CLJ-01851 TD BANK USA, N.A VS. KATHREEN IRIS MAYE S. MENDOZA

TD BANK USA, N.A ALEXANDER BALZER CARR KATHREEN IRIS MAYE S. MENDOZA PRO SE

MOTION FOR ORDER THAT MATTERS IN REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF TRUTH OF FACTS BE DEEMED ADMITTED

TENTATIVE RULING:

The court DENIES without prejudice plaintiff TD Bank, N.A.’ motion for order that matters in request for admission of truth of facts be deemed admitted, set not 1 for failure to provide proper notice to defendant of the hearing.

In the notice of motion, plaintiff put the date of July 29, 2026 as the hearing date. Then the clerk’s office changed the hearing date to September 8, 2026. The court file shows a proof of service filed and served on June 5, 2026 of the motion. Thus, the notice sent to defendant did not have the correct date.

There is no amended proof of service in the court file. Therefore, defendant did not receive proper notice of the hearing date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(b)(1)) and, therefore, the court must deny the motion because it lacks jurisdiction to hear it. (Diaz v. Professional Community Management, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190, 1204–1205 [“court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a motion that has not been properly noticed for hearing on the date in question.”].)

Since plaintiff states it is submitting on the papers without an appearance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1304(c), plaintiff does not have an opportunity to show that proper notice was provided.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, counsel for plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.

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