Motion for Order Deeming Matters Admitted
6 9:00 2 24CV448627 Sean D. Pieraccini v. FCA US, LLC, et al.
Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Compliance with Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and for Sanctions.
See Line 2 below for complete tentative ruling. After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal order.
9:00 3 25CV457205 Capital One, N.A. v. Alain P. Dela Rosa
Order on Plaintiff’s Motion that the Truth of All Specified Facts in the Requests for Admission, Set One, be deemed Admitted by Defendant.
See Line 3 below for complete tentative ruling. After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal order.
9:00 4 25CV461649 Abhishek Aggarwal v. Rivian, LLC, et al.
Order on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Civil Action
See Line 4 below for complete tentative ruling. After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal order.
17 Line 3 Case Name: Capital One, N.A. v. Alain P. Dela Rosa
Case No.: 25CV457205
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Plaintiff Capital One, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) moves for an Order under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2023.010 et seq. and 2033.280 that the truth of all specified facts in the Request for Admissions, Set One (“RFAs”) propounded by Plaintiff on Defendant Alain P. Dela Rosa (“Defendant”) on April 1, 2025, be deemed admitted by Defendant. Notice of Motion (the “Motion”) at 1:26-2:2 (filed Oct. 3, 2025). The Motion is made on the ground that Defendant failed to serve timely responses to the RFAs to Defendant. Id. at 2:2-4.
The Motion came on for hearing on May 15, 2026, at 9:00 AM in Department 16. After reviewing all the papers and the record, and giving counsel for all parties the full and fair opportunity to be heard, the Court finds and rules as follows.
Plaintiff served the Requests for Admission, Set One, on Defendant on April 1, 2025. Declaration of attorney Gregory Parks In Support of Motion (“Parks Decl. ”) at ¶ 2.
Defendant never responded to the Requests for Admission, Set One, Parks Decl. at ¶ 3, in spite of Defendant’s obligation to respond to them under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.240.
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?”
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, because Defendant failed to respond to the Requests for Admission, Set One, Plaintiff moves for an Order deeming admitted by Defendant the truth of each matter in the Requests for Admission, Set One. C.C.P. 2033.280(b).
The Motion is well supported by the law, well supported by the facts set forth in the Langedyk Declaration, and reasonable in all respects.
Moreover, Defendant failed to file any Opposition to the Motion. Under Rule of Court 8.54(c): “A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.” CRC Rule 8.54(c).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion in all respects. Specifically, it is hereby ORDERED that the truth of all specified facts in the Requests for Admission, Set One, served on Defendant Alain P. Dela Rosa on April 1, 2025, is deemed admitted b y Defendant Alain P. Dela Rosa.
18 SO ORDERED.
Date: May 15, 2026 Hon. Vincent I. Parrett Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara