Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 01/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions in Department 53
Tentative Ruling
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 Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the 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 53 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. 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 in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.
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 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 Courts 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
24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 01/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions in Department 53
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 Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Gregory Burkes (Plaintiff) motion for an order compelling Defendant Pacific Modern Homes, Inc. (PMH) to provide further responses to his Requests for Admission, set one (Nos. 2, 8, 9, 21, 22, and 30) is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.
No opposition to this motion was filed. The Court construes PMHs lack of opposition as a concession on the motions merits. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes that ground].) Moreover, the Court does not furnish legal arguments for a party. (See KCSFV I, LLC v. Florin County Water Dist. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1031; Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862.)
No later than January 30, 2026, PMH shall serve further verified responses to the subject discovery as requested in Plaintiffs moving papers.
Plaintiffs request for monetary sanctions is denied since the motion was unopposed. Although California Rules of Court, rule (CRC) 3.1348 purports to authorize sanctions if the motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing sanctions under the CRC must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing sanctions. (See Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v. Firmaterr, Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 354-355.) The Court also notes that Plaintiffs request for monetary sanctions included the filing fee; however, the Court granted Plaintiffs request for a fee waiver, and no filing fee was collected in connection with this motion.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 01/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions in Department 53