BOE vs DEACON CORP.

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 Court’s 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 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

24CV005025: BOE vs DEACON CORP. 10/21/2025 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted in Department 53

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 Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Deacon Builders, LLC’s motion to deem matters admitted is granted as set forth herein.

Defendant served requests for admission on Plaintiff John Boe on May 21, 2025. (Aguilar Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. A.) Plaintiff did not respond. Defendant now moves to deem the matters in the requests for admission admitted.

“The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(b).)

Plaintiff filed a document on October 7, 2025, which bears the title, “Issue: Rebuttal in Equity – Maintaining Original Jurisdiction by Special Visitation (Non-Adversarial, in Peace).” The title of this document does not indicate whether or not it is an opposition to Defendant’s current motion or intended to constitute verified responses to the underlying requests for admission. Due to the document’s unclarity, the Court is unable to discern what legally relevant and applicable points Plaintiff attempts to raise in the opposition.

Nonetheless, it does appear that Plaintiff intends that this document constitute what is essentially an opposition to the motion and that it itself is intended to respond in some way to Defendant’s requests for admission. (October 7, 2025 filing, pp. 6, 8-10.) However, while Plaintiff lists the text of the requests for admission in the body of the opposition, there is no accompanying verified admission, denial, or any indication that Plaintiff lacks information as to any request in conformance with Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.220.

At this point, in order to avoid a potential order of deemed admissions, Plaintiff must have verified these permissible responses to each of Defendant’s requests for admission and served them on Defendant. For example, if Plaintiff disputes the truth of any or all of Defendant’s requests for admission, Plaintiff could have simply denied each of the requests for admission, verified such responses, and served them on Defendant, which would have been compliant under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.220(b).

Yet, for whatever reason, Plaintiff still has not done so and by failing to do so, has now subjected himself and the viability of his alleged claims to a potential order that finds all of Defendant’s requests for admissions to be deemed admitted under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(b) and (c).

The Court notes that instead of simply providing a verified response to Defendant’s requests for admission, Plaintiff appears to raise some type of objection to the requests by citing to earlier portions of his brief which provide arguments but again, do not include any clear and verified

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005025: BOE vs DEACON CORP. 10/21/2025 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted in Department 53

statement of denial, admission or indication of a lack of information or knowledge as required under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.220(b) . (Id. 8-10.) Given that it is undisputed that Plaintiff did not timely respond to the requests for admission, all objections have been waived. “The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” (Cal Code Civ.

Proc § 2033.280(a) [emphasis added].) While the fact that responses may include objections does not preclude a finding that the responses are in substantial compliance (Katayama v. Continental Investment Group (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 898), here, Plaintiff appears to only assert what appear to be objections in the body of his document and provides no actual responses (i.e., no clear and verified statement of denial, admission, or indication of lack of information or knowledge under CCP § 2033.220(b)).

Plaintiff’s filed document cannot be construed as code-complaint proposed responses given he appears to only be asserting objections. This does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.220. Again, what is critical here is that still, as of the preparation of this order, there is no evidence that Plaintiff has served verified response in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.220(b).

While Plaintiff has not yet served verified responses in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.220(b), it is not yet too late for Plaintiff to do so. Given the filings related to this motion, the only way at this point that Plaintiff can avoid an order deeming the matters in Defendant’s request for admissions to be admitted is if Plaintiff serves, “before the hearing on the motion,” proposed responses to the subject requests for admissions that are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.220. (Cal Code Civ § 2033.280(c).)

As applied here, “before the hearing on the motion,” means before October 21, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., which is the time set for hearing on this motion. Importantly, if Plaintiff refuses or otherwise fails to serve codecompliant verified responses “before the hearing on the motion,” the Court must grant this motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.220(c).

As a result, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED and the matters at issue are deemed admitted, unless Plaintiff serves, “before the hearing on the motion,” proposed responses to the subject request for admissions served on May 21, 2025, that are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.220. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).)

Defendant’s request for mandatory monetary sanctions in connection with the motion to deem matters admitted is granted. CCP § 2033.280(c) provides that it “is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” The Court has no discretion in this regard, for example, like it does in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories, where it can decline to impose sanctions where it would be unjust. Plaintiff shall pay to Defendant a mandatory monetary sanction in the amount of $800 ($400/hr x 2 hr). The monetary sanction is to be paid on or before November 21, 2025. If the sanction is not paid by

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005025: BOE vs DEACON CORP. 10/21/2025 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted in Department 53

that date, Defendant may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may itself be enforced in the same manner and with the same force and effect as a money judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615 [“monetary sanction orders are enforceable through the execution of judgment laws”].)

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.