Judge: Blaine K. Bowman, Case: 37-2020-00015581-CU-CD-CTL, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 13, 2024

06/14/2024  08:30:00 AM  C-74 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Blaine K. Bowman

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Construction Defect Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2020-00015581-CU-CD-CTL EQUITY BUILDERS INC VS TONY BEDALOV INC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Cross-Defendant Bejan Arfaa's motion for order that matters be deemed admitted is DENIED.

In opposition Defendant/Cross-Complainant Tony Bedalov, Inc. seeks relief under CCP § 2033.280.

This section provides: If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: (a) The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.

(2) The party's failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

(b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

(c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.

With respect to the requirements of subsection (a)(2), Bedalov submits evidence that Bedalov's counsel mis-calendared the response date for Bedalov's responses to Arfaa's Request for Admissions, Set One.

The court finds such evidence sufficient to support a finding that Bedalov's failure to serve timely responses was as a result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. As to the requirements of subsection (a)(1), Bedalov submits evidence that Bedalov served verified responses to Arfaa's Request Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3100842  5 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  EQUITY BUILDERS INC VS TONY BEDALOV INC [E-FILE]  37-2020-00015581-CU-CD-CTL for Admissions Set One, on June 3, 2024. In reply Arfaa argues that Bedalov's responses are not in substantial compliance because the responses contain objections. Considering evidence of the reasons for Arfaa's failure to timely serve responses, and also considering that, 'because the law strongly favors trial and disposition on the merits, any doubts . . . . must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief' [New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1419 citing Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233] the court exercises its discretion in favor of relieving Bedalov from the waiver of objections. As Bedalov has been relieved of the waiver of objections, the court finds Bedalov's responses to Arfaa's Request for Admissions, Set One, in substantial compliance. To the extent Arfaa raises issues as to the substance of Bedalov's responses, such issues are properly the subject of a motion to compel further responses. The only issues relevant on this motion are whether Bedalov provided responses in substantial compliance and whether Bedalov's failure to timely respond was as a result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. The court finds Bedalov makes a sufficient showing as to both. As such, Arfaa's motion to deem admissions must be DENIED.

Arfaa's request for sanctions is DENIED for failure to comply with the requirements of CCP § 2023.040 ['[a] request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought . . . . ' Arfaa's notice of motion does not identify against whom sanctions are sought.

If this tentative ruling is confirmed the Minute Order will be the final order of the court and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3100842  5