Malin Kumar Ram vs. Rodney Andrews, et al.

September 11, 2026, Civil Law & Motion Tentative Rulings

1. CL0004070 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Patricia Lawrence

Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s unopposed motion for an order deeming the truth of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s request for admission as admitted is granted unless Defendant Lawrence serves, before the hearing, a proposed response to the requests for admission in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.220.

A party may move for an order deeming its Requests for Admission (“RFAs”) admitted if the party to whom they are directed has failed to serve a timely response. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(b). “The court shall make this order, unless it 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(c). Responses are due within 30 days after service of the discovery. Code Civ. Proc. §2033.250(a). Response time is extended by manner of service. Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.050. Service by mail extends the deadline by 5 calendar days. Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(a).

At bar, Plaintiff served its RFAs on June 3, 2026 by mail, making July 8, 2026 the deadline for Defendant to serve a timely response. Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4. Plaintiff has not received any response from Defendant. Id. ¶ 4. Therefore, the matters specified in Plaintiff’s RFAs are deemed admitted unless defendant serves, before the hearing, a proposed response to the requests for admission in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.220.

Sanctions are mandated, but none are sought by Plaintiff. See Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c). The Court concludes that Plaintiff waives its right to sanctions.

2. CU0002271 Christine Jones v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, d/b/a Mr. Cooper, American West Lender, LLC, et al.

Defendants Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper and America West Lender Services LLC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff’s complaint is removed from calendar without prejudice. There is no proof that the motion and notice of motion were served on Plaintiff or counsel on her behalf.

Defendants Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper and America West Lender Services LLC’s motion to remove lis pendens is removed from calendar without prejudice. There is no proof that the motion and notice of motion were served on Plaintiff or counsel on her behalf.

3. CU0002491 Malin Kumar Ram vs. Rodney Andrews, et al.

On the Court’s own motion, Defendant Charles Hasbun’s demurrer to the First Amended Complaint (FAC), Defendant Charles Hasbun’s motion to strike in connection with the FAC, and Defendant Rodney Andrews’ demurrer to the FAC are continued to December 4, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., in Department 6, to be heard concurrently with Defendant Isaiah Andrews’ demurrer to the FAC. As to the Rodney Andrews’ demurrer, the Court received a September 8, 2026, reply by 1

the moving party suggesting that Plaintiff filed an opposition. No such opposition, however, is on file. In addition, it will be more efficient to resolve all of these motions at the same time and to proceed thereafter, as warranted, with any further amended pleadings.

4. CU0002738 Roberta McGregor v. Victoria Yeager

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Roberta McGregor’s motion for an order requiring Cross-Complainant Yeager to post security is denied.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1030(a), a defendant sued by an out-of-state plaintiff “may at any time apply to the court by noticed motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to file an undertaking to secure an award of costs and attorney’s fees which may be awarded in the action or special proceeding.” In order to prevail on a motion for undertaking, the defendant must show that: (1) the plaintiff resides out of state; and (2) there is a “reasonable possibility” that the defendant will obtain a judgment in the matter.

Code Civ. Proc. § 1030(b). A defendant need not show that there is no possibility of the plaintiff prevailing—only that it is reasonably possible that defendant will prevail. Baltayan v. Estate of Getemyan (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1427, 1432. Additionally, the motion must be accompanied by a supporting affidavit or declaration that sets forth the nature and amount of the costs the defendant has incurred and expects to incur. Code Civ. Proc. § 1030(b). Finally, “the determinations of the court under this section have no effect on the determination of any issues on the merits of the action . . . and may not be given in evidence nor referred to in the trial of the action or proceeding.”

Code Civ. Proc. § 1030(f).

Analysis

At bar, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant McGregor fails to submit a supporting affidavit or declaration regarding the nature and amount of costs she has incurred and expects to incur, as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 1030(b). In addition, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant has made no showing that it is reasonably possible she will prevail; a conclusory statement regarding likelihood of success is insufficient. The motion is denied.

5. CU0002046 Glenn Kalaveras, et al. v. Kelly Purves

One of the parties apparently reserved this date for the filing of a motion; none was filed. This matter is removed from calendar. The Court is cognizant of a request for approval of a good faith settlement by Defendant Takhar, set for hearing on November 13, 2026, with notice of the same. There is likewise a request for approval of a good faith settlement by Defendant Purves; there is no filed notice of hearing associated with that request. Defendant Purves is welcome to request a hearing date for that matter and can then notice the same for hearing.

6. CL0004441 Greg Zaller v. Identified Defendant

Appearances are required in connection with Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons.

2