| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted
DEPARTMENT 400 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
ADMISSIONS ADMITTED The Court tenders the following tentative decision in the matter Alan Crick v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court case number 25STCV10469, set for hearing on May 18, 2026.
On November 21, 2025, Cross-Complainant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) propounded requests for admissions (RFAs) on Cross-Defendant Jason Melendez. (Preciado Decl. ¶ 3.) Responses were due on January 7, 2026. (Id. ¶ 4.) Melendez never provided responses. (Id. ¶ 5.)
On April 24, 2026, LACMTA moved to deem RFAs admitted. “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [that] party waives any objection to the requests.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “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.” (Id., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)
The Court shall grant an order deeming RFAs admitted unless the responding party serves substantially compliant responses before the hearing on the motion. A finding of substantial compliance depends on “whether answers in a proposed response are “as complete and straightforward’ as reasonably possible, as explicitly required by section 2033.220.” (Katayama v. Continental Investment Group (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 898, 907.) A party not in possession of information or knowledge necessary to respond to a request for admission must state in the answer that “a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (c).)
Here, Melendez has not served responses to LACMTA?s RFAs. Thus, LACMTA?s motion is granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Additionally, sanctions are warranted. Counsel alleges an hourly rate of $350, which the Court credits. (Preciado Decl. ¶ 6.) Counsel further alleges having spent 1 hour drafting the present motion and anticipates spending 0.5 hours attending the hearing on this matter. (Ibid.) These estimates are reasonable. Thus, the Court awards LACMTA $525 in sanctions ([$350 per hour] x [1.5 hours] = $525).
Conclusion: The Court grants the motion. The matters contained in the RFAs propounded on Melendez are deemed admitted and LACMTA is awarded $525 in sanctions.