Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts be Deemed Admitted
b) REQUEST TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550) RULING: GRANTED. Defendant Milestone Retirement Communities, LLC's request to file the Declaration of Benjamin Russell and Exhibits B, C, and E under seal is unopposed and is granted.
After considering the moving papers, the Court makes the following express findings pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d): There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the records at issue, including the confidentiality of settlement agreements and non’public discovery materials; The overriding interest supports sealing the records; There is a substantial probability that the overriding interest would be prejudiced if the records were not sealed; The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored, as it applies only to the declaration and exhibits that disclose confidential settlement terms and non’public discovery materials; and No less restrictive means exist to protect the overriding interest.
The Clerk is directed to file the Declaration of Benjamin Russell and Exhibits B, C, and E under seal. All other filings shall remain publicly accessible.
CV-25-006431 - PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC vs DUCEY, ANDREW - Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts be Deemed Admitted - GRANTED, and unopposed.
The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff's request. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(c); St. Mary's v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4 th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted.
The Court notes certain discrepancies in the proposed order relative to the subject requests. Specifically, the order differs from Requests 3 and 5, in that a different charge-off creditor is named therein. In addition, the order differs from Request 6 with regard to the amount of the unpaid balance. Plaintiff shall submit a revised form of order correcting these errors.
CV-25-006641 - BANK OF AMERICA NA vs GONZALEZ, CRYSTAL M - Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts be Deemed Admitted - GRANTED, and unopposed.
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?”
The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff's request. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(c); St. Mary's v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4 th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted.
The Court notes the proposed order referenced certain attached documents, the genuineness of which are at issue in the subject requests for admission herein, but the subject attachments are not present as part of the proposed order in the Court's file. Plaintiff shall submit a revised form of order correcting this error.
CV-26-003220 - HARRELL, DEBRA vs CITY OF MODESTO - Defendant, City of Modesto's Demurrer to First Amended Writ of Mandamus - OVERRULED.
The First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate adequately states claims for relief under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1094.5 and, in the alternative, 1085. At the pleading stage, the Court accepts all well’pleaded factual allegations as true and does not resolve factual disputes or weigh evidence.
The First Amended Petition alleges a final administrative decision following a hearing at which evidence was taken and further alleges that the decision is unsupported by substantial evidence, was reached through a procedurally unfair process, and constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion. These allegations fall squarely within the grounds for judicial review set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. Although Respondents argue that the City acted pursuant to its municipal code authority and complied with all