JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Maria Diaz De Leon

beggars understanding that the Defendant now asserts she did not understand that a lawsuit existed at the time she signed the stipulation, which is directly contradicted by the document and the circumstances surrounding it. Proposed ruling:

Defendant’s motion is denied.

CL-25-00486 JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Maria Diaz De Leon 6-26-2026

On calendar for Plaintiff’s 5-1-2026 Motion for requests for admissions to be deemed admitted.

Plaintiff: Alexander Balzer Carr (JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.)

Defendant: Self Represented (Diaz De Leon, Maria)

6-23-25 Complaint for $5,723.58. This case involves efforts to collect on consumer debt. Plaintiff raises the following causes of action: 1) Breach of Contract

7-9-25 Defendant Answers, answer admits all of the statements in the complaint as true. She notes she is enrolled in a debt relief program, which did not take care of this credit card with the Plaintiff. She asserts she enrolled due to a financial hardship and could not continue paying the card.

Argument:

5-1-26: Plaintiff’s counsel states on 12-17-2025 that they served the Defendant with their requests for admission, set one, which were due 35 days thereafter. No responses have been received to date. Pursuant to CCP§2033.280 et seq, if a party propounding requests for admission has properly served those requests and the time to respond has expired without any response having been received, the court shall order that the requests be deemed admitted and documents requested to be admitted as genuine be deemed genuine.

5-1-25 Declaration of E. Oyama, counsel for Plaintiff in support. States that on 12-17-2025 the requests for admissions were served with a proof of service, appended as EX 1(¶2.) Declarant further affirms that no responses have been received. (¶3.)

Legal Argument: Any party may obtain discovery by written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion related to a fact, or application of law to a fact. (CCP§ 2033.010.) Similarly, a request for admissions may relate to a matter in controversy between the parties. (Id.) A

*Please contact Judicial Courtroom Assistant, Adriana Ramirez, at (831) 636-4057 x124 or aramirez@sanbenitocourt.org with any objections or concerns

party served with requests for admissions has 30 days to serve their response after being served with the requests. (CCP§2033.250.) If no response is received, the propounding party must bring a formal “deemed admitted motion” to have requests for admission which has received no timely response deemed admitted. (Stover v. Bruntz (2017) 12 Cal. App. 5th 19, 30; St. Mary v. Sup. Ct. (2014) 2223 Cal. App. 4th 76, 775-776.) Service of responses before the hearing defeats the motion, but imposing monetary sanctions remains mandatory.

There is no meet and confer requirement for a motion t deem admitted under CCP§2033.280 as there is for a motion to compel further response. (St. Mary v. Sup Ct., supra, at 777-778.) Unless the judge determines that a responding party has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission in substantial compliance with CCP§2033.220 the judge must order the requests for admission deemed admitted. Such an order establishes, by judicial fiat, that a non-responding party has responded to the requests by admitting the truth of the matters contained in the requests. (St.

Mary v. Sup. Ct, supra, at 776.) Moreover, pursuant to CCP§2033.420(a), a party may also request the court order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request for admission be admitted.

Analysis: Plaintiff has provided declarations supporting that the Plaintiff served the requests for admissions and request to establish the genuineness of documents on or about 12-17-2025. The time for responding to these requests has elapsed without any service of code compliant responses. As is required, the Plaintiff now moves the court to deem admitted the matters to be deemed admitted; such motion is proper and provides the court the needed factual basis for the request.

Proposed ruling: The Plaintiff’s motion is granted as prayed

END OF TENTATIVE RULING

*Please contact Judicial Courtroom Assistant, Adriana Ramirez, at (831) 636-4057 x124 or aramirez@sanbenitocourt.org with any objections or concerns