Montecito Bank & Trust vs Dominic Bo Regas et al

Case Number

23CV04164

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 04/29/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Compel

Tentative Ruling

On December 5, 2023, plaintiff electronically served pro per defendant Dominic Bo Regas with Form Interrogatories (Set 1), a Request for Production of Documents (Set 1), and Requests for Admissions (Set 1). As a pro per party to the action, electronic service upon defendant cannot be utilized unless he has manifested affirmative consent to electronic service in the manner required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(c)(3) and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.251(b)(1). There is no evidence in the court file that defendant Regas has ever manifested affirmative consent to electronic service in any manner. While defendant electronically filed his Answer to the Complaint in this matter, the mere act of electronic filing does not constitute express consent to electronic service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c)(3)(ii)).

Because the discovery was never properly served upon the defendant, defendant’s obligation to respond to the discovery never arose. Further, the motion to compel and for deemed admissions was also electronically served upon defendant, without his affirmative consent to electronic service. Consequently, this Court has no authority to issue any orders (a) compelling responses, (b) deeming admitted matters set forth requests for admissions, or (c) awarding sanctions.

The motion is therefore denied in its entirety.