DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24-CLJ-07826·sanmateo·Civil·Civil Action
Hearing 2 months agoGRANTED

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. VS. ASHWIN L SINGH

MOTION FOR ORDER THAT MATTERS IN REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF TRUTH OF FACTS BE DEEMED ADMITTED

Hearing date
Jun 23, 2026
Department
4
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffBANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
DefendantASHWIN L SINGH

Attorneys

BRIAN LANGEDYKfor Plaintiff

Ruling

June 23, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 34 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

2:00 PM LINE 13 24-CLJ-07826 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. VS. ASHWIN L SINGH

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. BRIAN LANGEDYK ASHWIN L SINGH PRO SE

MOTION FOR ORDER THAT MATTERS IN REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF TRUTH OF FACTS BE DEEMED ADMITTED

TENTATIVE RULING:

The court GRANTS plaintiff Bank of America, N.A.’s unopposed motion to deem facts admitted.

The court notes that the notice states that the hearing will be held on the First Floor, Room A of 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063, but Room A is the clerk’s office. Department 4 is located in Courtroom 4C on the fourth floor.

On January 22, 2025, plaintiff served by mail defendant Ashwin L. Singh with requests for admissions. (Declaration of Audrey Calderson, ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) More than thirty-five days have passed and there have been no responses. Accordingly, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420, the court deems the requests admitted. Plaintiff shall attach the requests for admission to the proposed order.

Plaintiff did not request sanctions and thus none are awarded.

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 California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share