Wells Fargo Bank NA vs Jose J Cervantes

Case Number

25CV01953

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 09/10/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Plaintiff for an order deeming the truth of matters specified in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions

Tentative Ruling

For Wells Fargo Bank [“Plaintiff”]: Jon O. Blanda, Angela A. Velen, David Bartley

Defendant Jose J Cervantes ("Defendant") is self-represented

Issue

This is a motion by Plaintiff for an order deeming the truth of matters specified in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions; contends they should be “admitted based on Defendant’s failure to provide any responses to those requests.”

Ruling

The Motion is GRANTED. The Court deems the truth of the matters specified in Plaintiffs Request for Admissions as admitted.

The Trial Date of 10/20/25 at 9 am is confirmed.

The Motion

Filed 7/14/25; summarized; Plaintiff moves the Court for an order deeming the truth of matters specified in the Request for Admissions propounded on Defendant, be deemed admitted pursuant to§§ 2033.010, 2033.020, 2033.250, 2033.280, and 2033.420 of the Code of Civil. This Motion was based upon the Notice, the Declaration of David Bartley, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the pleadings, records and files in this action and such other oral and/or documentary evidence as may be presented at the time of the hearing.

In the Memorandum Plaintiff reports, summarized; This is a simple collections case  [$24,656.33]. Plaintiff sued Defendant for the collection of a debt. Defendant filed an Answer. Plaintiff then propounded basic discovery consisting of Request For Admissions. Responses were due on or before June 13, 2025, Defendant failed to respond. Plaintiff

sent Defendant a meet and confer letter indicating that Plaintiff had not received any responses to the discovery and further provided an extension in which to respond. As of the date of the motion, Defendant has not provided any responses to the discovery.

Supported by the Declaration of David Bartley; filed 7/14/25.

The Court’s Conclusions

Any party may obtain discovery by written request that any other party to the action

admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2033.010. Here, on or about May 9, 2025, Plaintiff served its first set of Request for Admissions on the Defendant. Responses to the Requests for Admissions were due on or before June 13, 2025; Defendant failed to provide any response by that date. Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter, which notified Defendant that it did not receive any responses to the Discovery and provided an extension in which to respond. Defendant failed to provide any response to the Request for Admissions; therefore, the Court should deem

the truth of the matters specified in Plaintiffs Request for Admissions (Set One) as admitted.