On March 01, 2018 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Cavalry Spv I, Llc,
and
Bainum, Daisy,
Does 1 To 10, Inclusive,
for EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740)
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
1 Daisy Bainum
1446 Washington Street Apt. 4
2 San Francisco, CA 94109 ELECTRONICALLY
3 (843) 303-3548 F I L E D
Defendant In Pro Per Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
4
06/18/2019
5 Clerk of the Court
BY: DAVID YUEN
Deputy Clerk
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
7
SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT – LIMITED CIVIL
8
9
CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, as Assignee of Case No. CGC-18-564695
10 SYNCHRONY BANK FKA GE CAPITAL
RETAIL BANK, DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO
11 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM
12 Plaintiff, REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMITTED; DECLARATION OF
13 vs. DAISY BAINUM
14 DAISY BAINUM AKA DAISY A. BAINUM Date: June 25, 2019
15 and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 302
16
Defendant.
17
18
19 Defendant DAISY BAINUM (hereinafter “Defendant,”) hereby opposes Plaintiff
20 CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, as Assignee of SYNCHRONY BANK FKA GE CAPITAL RETAIL
21
BANK’s (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted on the
22
grounds that Defendant has provided responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set No.
23
One.
24
25 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
26 Plaintiff allegedly served Request for Admissions on March 7, 2019. Defendant served
27
verified responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, without objections via Overnight
28
Page 1 of 3
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMITTED; DECLARATION OF DAISY BAINUM
1 delivery on June 18, 2019. The previously served responses are attached to this opposition as
2 Exhibit “A.”
3
4 II. ARGUMENT
5 A responding party can oppose a motion to deem facts as admitted when it serves
6 responses, before the hearing date on the motion, that substantially comply with Code of
7 Civil Procedure §2033.220. See Civ. Proc. Code §2033.280 (c). As long as responses in
8 “substantial compliance” with §2033.220 are served prior to the hearing, the motion to
9 establish admissions is defeated. See Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil
10 Procedure Before Trial, ¶8:1374.2 (Rutter Group 2017). No showing of mistake,
11 inadvertence, or excusable neglect is required. Tobin v. Oris, (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th, 814,
12 828.
13 Section 2033.220 ensures that litigants receive formal notice of the need to
14 prepare responses and some additional time to accomplish that task before the devastating
15 effects of failing to respond to Request for Admissions are visited upon them. See
16 Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates, (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393,399.
17 Defendant has provided verified responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions
18 and did not object to any of the Requests. A copy of the responses is attached to this
19 opposition as Exhibit “A.”
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28
Page 2 of 3
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMITTED; DECLARATION OF DAISY BAINUM
1 III. CONCLUSION
2
Defendant respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Matters
3
as Admitted and deny Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.
4
5 Dated: June 18, 2019 Respectfully submitted,
6
7
By: __________________________
8 DAISY BAINUM
9 Defendant In Pro Per
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 3 of 3
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
ADMITTED; DECLARATION OF DAISY BAINUM
Document Filed Date
June 18, 2019
Case Filing Date
March 01, 2018
Category
EXEMPT COLLECTIONS (RULE 3.740)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
1 Daisy Bainum 1446 Washington Street Apt. 4 2 San Francisco, CA 94109 ELECTRONICALLY 3 (843) 303-3548 F I L E D Defendant In Pro Per Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 4 06/18/2019 5 Clerk of the Court BY: DAVID YUEN Deputy Clerk 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 7 SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT – LIMITED CIVIL 8 9 CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, as Assignee of Case No. CGC-18-564695 10 SYNCHRONY BANK FKA GE CAPITAL RETAIL BANK, DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO 11 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM 12 Plaintiff, REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; DECLARATION OF 13 vs. DAISY BAINUM 14 DAISY BAINUM AKA DAISY A. BAINUM Date: June 25, 2019 15 and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: 302 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Defendant DAISY BAINUM (hereinafter “Defendant,”) hereby opposes Plaintiff 20 CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, as Assignee of SYNCHRONY BANK FKA GE CAPITAL RETAIL 21 BANK’s (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted on the 22 grounds that Defendant has provided responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set No. 23 One. 24 25 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 26 Plaintiff allegedly served Request for Admissions on March 7, 2019. Defendant served 27 verified responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, without objections via Overnight 28 Page 1 of 3 DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; DECLARATION OF DAISY BAINUM 1 delivery on June 18, 2019. The previously served responses are attached to this opposition as 2 Exhibit “A.” 3 4 II. ARGUMENT 5 A responding party can oppose a motion to deem facts as admitted when it serves 6 responses, before the hearing date on the motion, that substantially comply with Code of 7 Civil Procedure §2033.220. See Civ. Proc. Code §2033.280 (c). As long as responses in 8 “substantial compliance” with §2033.220 are served prior to the hearing, the motion to 9 establish admissions is defeated. See Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil 10 Procedure Before Trial, ¶8:1374.2 (Rutter Group 2017). No showing of mistake, 11 inadvertence, or excusable neglect is required. Tobin v. Oris, (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th, 814, 12 828. 13 Section 2033.220 ensures that litigants receive formal notice of the need to 14 prepare responses and some additional time to accomplish that task before the devastating 15 effects of failing to respond to Request for Admissions are visited upon them. See 16 Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates, (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393,399. 17 Defendant has provided verified responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions 18 and did not object to any of the Requests. A copy of the responses is attached to this 19 opposition as Exhibit “A.” 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 Page 2 of 3 DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; DECLARATION OF DAISY BAINUM 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 Defendant respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Matters 3 as Admitted and deny Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. 4 5 Dated: June 18, 2019 Respectfully submitted, 6 7 By: __________________________ 8 DAISY BAINUM 9 Defendant In Pro Per 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 3 of 3 DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; DECLARATION OF DAISY BAINUM