| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED
5/21/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 12 of 13
2:00 PM LINE: 5 25-CLJ-03187 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. VS. IRENE LEPULU
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. HARLAN M. REESE IRENE LEPULU CYNTHIA DOUTHWAITE
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED AND OF NON APPEARANCE
TENTATIVE RULING:
For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted is GRANTED.
LEGAL STANDARD
Responses to requests for admission must be served within 30 days after service of the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).) If timely responses are not served, the responding party waives any objections to the requests, and the propounding party may move for an order deeming the truth of the matters specified in the requests admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a), (b).) The court must grant the requested order unless it finds that, before the hearing, the responding party served a proposed response that substantially complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
DISCUSSION
Wells Fargo submits evidence that it served its first set of requests for admission on Defendant Irene Lepulu, through her attorney of record, by mail on August 7, 2025. (Nov. 24, 2025 Declaration of Anthony Lio (“Lio Decl.”), ¶ 1, Exh. A.) Lepulu’s responses were therefore due on September 11, 2025. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1013
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?”
Accordingly, the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in Wells Fargo’s requests for admission are deemed admitted.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare a written order consistent with this ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide notice of the ruling to all appearing parties as required by law. The Court further directs the parties’ attention to revised Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) (eff. Jan. 1, 2024) regarding the form of proposed orders.