COLEMAN vs CASA OROZCO, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION, et al.

25CV147547: COLEMAN vs CASA OROZCO, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by DEBBIE COLEMAN (Plaintiff) CRS# 762718033927 in Department 520

Tentative Ruling - 05/22/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson

The Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted filed by DEBBIE COLEMAN on 02/05/2026 is Granted in Part.

The Motion of Plaintiff Debbie Coleman (“Plaintiff”) to Compel (not Further) or Deem Requests for Admission Admitted is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. At the time of this Tentative Ruling, no Reply has been filed.

Monetary sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $760 against Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally, payable to Plaintiff forthwith. (Id. at ¶¶ 18-21.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s evidence shows that Plaintiff served Defendant Casa Orozco (“Defendant”) with the subject Requests for Admissions, Set One (“RFAs”) on October 28, 2025 (Mazza Decl. ¶ 7; Ex. 1), that Defendant’s responses were due on December 2, 2025 (Ibid) and that although Defendant served responses on January 16, 2026 after an extension was granted, they were unverified. (Id. at ¶ 10.) Defendant does not deny this but claims that it served verifications on February 16, 2026 after the Motion was filed; however, it provides no explanation for the delay. (Rutherford Decl., ¶ 16, Ex. A.) Further, the subject email with the verifications attached reflects that the verifications were actually sent two days later, on February 18, 2026. (Ibid.)

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom request for admissions are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party to whom the requests for admissions are directed waives any objection to the requests. (C.C.P. § 2033.280(a).) However, subsections (1) and (2) of this statute state that the court may grant relief from this waiver if both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230; and (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

A responding party’s service, prior to the hearing on a “deemed admitted” motion, of substantially compliant responses to requests for admission will defeat a propounding party’s attempt to have the RFAs deemed admitted. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 25CV147547: COLEMAN vs CASA OROZCO, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by DEBBIE COLEMAN (Plaintiff) CRS# 762718033927 in Department 520 762, 775-776.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant represents that responses to the RFAs have since been served on Plaintiff. (Rutherford Decl. ¶ 7; Ex. 1.) In light of the fact that there is no Reply, the Court considers it undisputed that the responses, while late, are substantially compliant; “[i]f the party manages to serve its responses before the hearing, the court has no discretion but to deny the motion Everything, in short, depends on submitting responses prior to the hearing.” (Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Homes Estates (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 393, 395-396.) It is unsworn responses that are equivalent to no response at all and therefore not in substantial compliance with section 2033.240, subd. (a). (Allen-Pacific, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1551.)

A responding party’s service, prior to the hearing on a “deemed admitted” motion, of substantially compliant responses to requests for admission will defeat a propounding party’s attempt to have the RFAs deemed admitted. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 775-776; Kabbe v. Miller (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 93, 98.)

Accordingly, Defendant has satisfied the requirements set forth in C.C.P. § 2033.280(a)(1) and (2) and relief is not available pursuant to C.C.P. § 2033.280; the Motion is DENIED as to the request to compel responses or in the alternative, deem the RFAs admitted.

However, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART to compensate Plaintiff for having to bring this motion. Monetary sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $760 against Defendant and its counsel, jointly and severally, payable to Plaintiff forthwith. (Mazza Decl. ¶¶ 18-21.)

NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on May 28, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on May 27, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or selfrepresented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.

The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.

The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV147547: COLEMAN vs CASA OROZCO, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by DEBBIE COLEMAN (Plaintiff) CRS# 762718033927 in Department 520 retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.

ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice that they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.