Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts be Deemed Admitted
list of documents as a condition to exercising the nullification provision. The relevant inquiry is whether the Trustee invoked the contractual procedure and whether the parties were unable to reach agreement.
Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Hilmar argues that the Trustee's actions violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in the Settlement Agreement. However, the implied covenant cannot be used to impose obligations beyond those expressly agreed upon in the contract. (Bevis v. Terrace View Partners, LP (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 230, as modified on denial of reh'g (Mar. 21, 2019); Carma Devs. (Cal.), Inc. v. Marathon Dev. California, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 342).
The Settlement Agreement explicitly provided a mechanism for the Trustee to declare the Agreement null and void if further production did not satisfy his needs. The Trustee's invocation of this provision was consistent with the express terms of the Agreement and does not constitute a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot override the clear and unambiguous terms of the contract, which allowed the Trustee to declare the Agreement null and void under the specified conditions.
Plaintiffs contend that the Trustee's determination must be objectively reasonable. The Court has considered Storek & Storek, Inc. v. Citicorp Real Estate, Inc. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 44. Under Storek, where a contract confers discretion based on a party's satisfaction, that discretion is exercised based on the party's good faith judgment, rather than an objective reasonableness standard imposed by the Court. Applying that standard, the Court finds that the Trustee's determination that the production was insufficient was made in good faith. The Trustee's position is supported by the record, including the valuation expert's statements regarding the information required to complete the appraisal. The Court therefore finds that the Trustee acted within the scope of the discretion afforded under the SALR.
Because the Agreement was declared null and void by its own terms following the parties' inability to reach agreement on further production that would satisfy the Trustee, there is no enforceable settlement to reduce to judgment under Sec. 664.6. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is hereby DENIED. No judgment shall be entered under Sec. 664.6 based on the September 5, 2025, Settlement Agreement, and the books-and-records claims remain unresolved for purposes of further proceedings consistent with this Court's docket and the parties' pleadings.
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?”
CV-25-005613 - JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA vs VALDOVINOS, ERIKA - Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts be Deemed Admitted - GRANTED, and unopposed. Plaintiff submitted the instant motion supported by a declaration. Plaintiff states that it propounded requests for admissions on Defendant and received no response. Therefore, Plaintiff requests that the truth of facts specified be deemed admitted. "If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he 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[.]" (Code Civ.
Proc., Sec. 2033.280.) "The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280(c).) Accordingly, Plaintiff's unopposed motion is GRANTED. The proposed order references an attachment that is not included. (Plaintiff may have intended to cross-reference the attachments to the underlying requests for admissions that were propounded on Defendant, but the language in the proposed order is unclear.)
Plaintiff is directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that includes the attachment.
CV-25-005891 - JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA vs KING, JULIE A - Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts be Deemed Admitted - GRANTED, and unopposed. Plaintiff submitted the instant motion supported by a declaration. Plaintiff states that it propounded requests for admissions on Defendant and received no response. Therefore, Plaintiff requests that the truth of facts specified be deemed admitted. "If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he 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[.]" (Code Civ.
Proc., Sec. 2033.280.) "The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280(c).) Accordingly, Plaintiff's unopposed motion is GRANTED. The proposed order references an attachment that is not included. (Plaintiff may have intended to cross-reference the attachments to the underlying requests for admissions that were propounded on Defendant, but the language in the proposed order is unclear.)
Plaintiff is directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that includes the attachment.
CV-25-000052 - BANK OF AMERICA NA vs PELAYO, CHRISTINA MARIA - Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - GRANTED without leave to amend, and unopposed. The Court finds that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for breach of contract and/or common counts. Defendant's answer expressly admits all material allegations of the complaint and asserts no legally valid affirmative defenses. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 431.20, subd. (a), 438, subd. (c)(1)(A).) Defendant failed to file an opposition, so the Court has no grounds for finding that the answer could be amended to state a valid defense.
Accordingly, the unopposed motion is GRANTED without leave to amend. The Court has reviewed the memorandum of costs that was filed and finds the costs uncontroversial. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. and against Defendant Christina Pelayo in the total sum of $8,635.16, which comprises damages in the principal sum of $8,276.55 and court costs of $358.61. The Court will sign the proposed order that was submitted with the motion. However, the proposed judgment contains a typographical error as to the total amount.
The Court will revise the proposed judgment to reflect the correct total and then will sign it.
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA: ***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 19***