Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV06049, Date: 2023-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV06049    Hearing Date: January 4, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On October 23, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs Guadalupe Del Carmen Andrade and Maria Andrade (“Plaintiffs”) motion to withdraw admissions deemed admitted. (Min. Order, 10/23/23.) However, the Court also noted the following: Plaintiffs filed their complaint in February of 2020 and the answer was filed in June of 2021. Defendants CalPortland Company, CalPortland Construction, and Homer Phillip Banks, Jr. (“Defendants”) motion to deem admitted was granted in November 2021. In April 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel received notice of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on the admissions.

However, Plaintiffs did not take action to withdraw the admissions until a year later, in April 2023. “In the meantime, without participation of Plaintiffs in the normal course of litigation (despite many repeated efforts to reach out to Plaintiffs’ counsel), Defendants were forced to seek court intervention, waiting for hearing dates to become available, and responding to deficient and belated efforts by Plaintiffs. The Court agrees with Defendants that the costs of now having to essentially start the case over, more than three and a half years after the complaint was filed, should be borne by Plaintiffs.” (Min. Order, 10/23/23.)

The Court then ordered, as a condition to granting Plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw the admissions:

“Plaintiffs and their counsel, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay all Defendant’s fees and costs for all additional discovery related to the matters in the withdrawn admissions. Plaintiffs and their counsel are further ordered to pay all Defendant’s fees and costs associated with the motion for summary judgment. Defendant shall file a motion for fees and costs at the appropriate time.”

(Min. Order, 10/23/23.)

            Defendants now move, pursuant to that order, for attorney fees and costs associated with their motion for summary judgment, in the amount of $12,579.75. Plaintiffs oppose and Defendants reply.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300, the court may permit withdrawal or amendment of an admission only if it determines that the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and that the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300(b).)

“The court may impose conditions on the granting of the motion that are just, including, but not limited to, the following:

(1) An order that the party who obtained the admission be permitted to pursue additional discovery related to the matter involved in the withdrawn or amended admission.

(2) An order that the costs of any additional discovery be borne in whole or in part by the party withdrawing or amending the admission.”

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300(c).)

“[S]ection 2033.300 does not limit a court's discretion to those conditions set forth in subdivision (c)(1) and (2). Rather, by its express terms, section 2033.300 gives a court discretion to impose ‘just’ conditions that are ‘not limited to’ those specified in the statute. [citation.] An award of attorney fees that is reasonable in light of the conditional relief granted can accordingly be such a condition.” (Rhule v. WaveFront Technology, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1223, 1228.)

DISCUSSION

Defendants contend that the total attorney fees expended in relation to their motion for summary judgment was $12,066.00 based on an hourly rate of $225. The total costs were $513.75. Defendants’ counsel produces a declaration, under penalty of perjury, itemizing the fees and costs requested. (Watts Decl. ¶ 15.)

Plaintiffs oppose for various reasons.[1] First, they argue the fees and costs for Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is a “windfall” and does not conform with the intent of section 2033.300. However, the law cited by Plaintiffs in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 982–83, describes a “windfall” where the court allows admissions to remain. (Opp., 5.) Here, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw the admissions, in order to allow the merits of the case to be decided. However, given the evidence presented, the Court conditioned relief on the payment of attorneys’ fees and costs.

Plaintiffs argue the Court’s order is used as a punishment, and therefore improper. However, the Court did not invoke any discovery sanction statute when making its order. The basis for the condition stems from section 2033.300, which allows the court to award attorney fees as a condition of relief. (Rhule v. WaveFront Technology, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1223, 1228.) The Court’s condition was not to punish Plaintiffs but as a fair condition in light of granting Plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw the admissions.

Next, Plaintiffs appear to argue the condition is improper because Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was never decided on the merits. However, no authority is cited in support of this argument. Lastly, Plaintiffs briefly mention that, alternatively, attorney fees should be limited to two hours due to the simplistic nature of the summary judgment motion. However, the amount requested is set forth in a declaration under penalty of perjury. The Court finds the amount requested to be reasonable.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, Defendants’ motion for Attorney Fees and Costs is GRANTED. Plaintiffs and their counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay $12,579.75 to counsel for Defendants within 30 days.

Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.