WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. VS HAYLEY ROEMERS

June 9, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 28 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

2:00 PM LINE 12 25-CLJ-08615 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. VS HAYLEY ROEMERS

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. DOUGLAS AGNE HAYLEY ROEMERS PRO SE

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND OF NONAPPEARANCE

TENTATIVE RULING:

The court DENIES without prejudice plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank’s motion for order deeming admitted plaintiff’s request for admission, set one for failure to provide proper notice to defendant of the hearing.

In the notice of motion, plaintiff put the date of May 26, 2026 as the hearing date. Then the clerk’s office changed the hearing date to June 9, 2026. The court file shows a proof of service filed March 2, 2026 of the motion showing service of the motion on defendant on February 26, 2026. 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