On April 19, 2019, Shane Robert Duclos (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Anil Chandular Panchal (Defendant) alleging causes of action, for (1) motor vehicle, and (2) general negligence. Plaintiff’s lawsuit arises from a motorcycle (driven by Plaintiff) versus vehicle (driven by Defendant) collision on Dolliver Street in Pismo Beach on April 30, 2017. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was cited by the City of Pismo Beach Police Department for failing to yield to the right of way and failing to signal.
Now before the Court is Defendant’s motion for an order from the Court that all request for admissions (RFAs) served on Plaintiff be deemed admitted and conclusively established for all purposes. Defendant also requests sanctions in the amount of $1,050. No opposition is on file from Plaintiff.
On February 6, 2020, Defendant served its first set of RFAs on Plaintiff. (Ex. A.) To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the RFAs. (Louro Decl., ¶ 5.) Thus, Defendant moves for an order deeming t
Hearing Date
August 13, 2020
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
On April 19, 2019, Shane Robert Duclos (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Anil Chandular Panchal (Defendant) alleging causes of action, for (1) motor vehicle, and (2) general negligence. Plaintiff’s lawsuit arises from a motorcycle (driven by Plaintiff) versus vehicle (driven by Defendant) collision on Dolliver Street in Pismo Beach on April 30, 2017. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was cited by the City of Pismo Beach Police Department for failing to yield to the right of way and failing to signal.
Now before the Court is Defendant’s motion for an order from the Court that all request for admissions (RFAs) served on Plaintiff be deemed admitted and conclusively established for all purposes. Defendant also requests sanctions in the amount of $1,050. No opposition is on file from Plaintiff.
On February 6, 2020, Defendant served its first set of RFAs on Plaintiff. (Ex. A.) To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the RFAs. (Louro Decl., ¶ 5.) Thus, Defendant moves for an order deeming t