Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 24STCV00985, Date: 2025-01-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV00985    Hearing Date: January 14, 2025    Dept: 14

#10

Case Background

This is a lemon law case.

On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff Jorge Luis Luna Morales filed his Complaint against Defendant General Motors, LLC.

On December 13, 2024, Defendant filed this motion for relief from waiver of objections to Plaintiff’s request for admissions.  

Instant Pleading

Defendant moves for waiver of objections to Plaintiff’s request for admissions, set one.

Decision

This matter is CONTINUED to January 28, 2025. Defendant is to file a copy of its responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One by January 20, 2025.

Discussion

Defendant moves for relief from waiver of objections.

Code Civ. Proc., section 2033.280(a) provides that the court may, on motion, relieve a party from his waiver of objections to requests for admissions if (1) the party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230, and (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

The statutory language “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect” in the discovery statute should be interpreted using the same general principles developed in application of the identical language in section 473, subdivision (b). (Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 275.) Although the party moving for relief under section 473 has the burden to show that the mistake, inadvertence, or neglect was excusable, any doubts as to that showing must be resolved in favor of the moving party. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420.)  

Here, Defendant’s counsel testifies that he served late responses to Plaintiff’s requests for admissions (RFAs) on March 29, 2024. (Bowton Decl., ¶2.) Counsel failed to serve timely responses because another attorney handled the case at the time the RFAs were filed who did not realize there had been a calendaring error. (Id., ¶3.) Counsel discovered the error when Plaintiff served a discovery motion and subsequently served the late responses. (Id., ¶¶4-5.)

The Court is satisfied that Defendant’s failure to serve timely responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs was due to its counsel’s mistake. However, Defendant failed to attach a copy of the RFA responses. The Court cannot determine whether the RFA responses were substantially code compliant. To allow Defendant to file a copy of the RFA responses, this matter is CONTINUED to January 28, 2025, the same date as Plaintiff’s motion concerning the same RFA responses. Defendant is to file the responses by January 20, 2025.

Conclusion

This matter is CONTINUED to January 28, 2025. Defendant is to file a copy of its responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One by January 20, 2025.