Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBCV01020, Date: 2024-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV01020    Hearing Date: November 15, 2024    Dept: A

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ADMISSIONS

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Topa Insurance Company (Plaintiff), as subrogee of its insured Khachik Aslanyan, brings this action against Garnik Gholikandi Badalyans, individually and dba 11104 Oro Vista LLC, Taltech Construction, Inc. (Taltech) and 11104 Oro Vista, LLC (collectively Defendants). Plaintiff seeks subrogation in connection with losses its alleges were caused by Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Defendants failure to design and contract ventilation safeguards at 11104 Oro Vista Ave, Sunland, California 91040, resulted in significant water damage to that property.

Before the Court is a motion by Plaintiff for relief from admissions made in response to Taltech’s Request for Admissions propounded August 16, 2024. (See Toroyan Decl. ¶ 3.) Taltech opposes the motion and objects to the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel in support. This merit of this objection will be discussed in the course of the Court’s ruling on the motion.  

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

C.C.P. § 2033.300 states:

(a) A party may withdraw or amend an admission made in response to a request for admission only on leave of court granted after notice to all parties.

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

C.C.P. § 2033.300 permits amendment or withdrawal of admissions expressly made by a party and also applies to “deemed admissions.” (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 979.)

“The court may permit withdrawal of an admission only if the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect and the opposing party will not be substantially prejudiced.” (Stover v. Bruntz (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 19, 30-31.) “Because the law strongly favors trial and disposition on the merits, any doubts in applying section 2033.300 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief. “Accordingly, the court's discretion to deny a motion under the statute is limited to circumstances where it is clear that the mistake, inadvertence, or neglect was inexcusable, or where it is clear that the withdrawal or amendment would substantially prejudice the party who obtained the admission in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits.” (New Albertsons v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420-21.)

The words “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect” have the same meaning in the discovery statutes as those terms have in C.C.P. § 473(b). (New Albertsons supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at 1418-19; see also Carli v. Superior Court (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1095, 1099.) “Mistake is not a ground for relief under section 473, subdivision (b), when 'the court finds that the “mistake” is simply the result of professional incompetence, general ignorance of the law, or unjustifiable negligence in discovering the law...’[Citation.]” (Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1206

II.                 MERITS

Facts

Plaintiff seeks relief from his response to Defendant’s RFA propounded August 16, 2024. Although Plaintiff does not attach these responses to his motion, Taltech’s submissions make clear that 13 RFAs were sent to Plaintiff. (Melkonian Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff appears to have responded ‘admit” to ten of these RFAs. (Id. at ¶ 5.)

Discussion

The Court finds Plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated that his admissions were the result of “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect”. To reach this finding, the Court must first discuss Taltech’s objection to the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel on grounds that it is based on hearsay.

Plaintiff’s counsel, Christina Toroyan (Toroyan), submits the only declaration in support of this motion. Toroyan states that, “In preparing responses to Requests, incorrect information was presented by my client, which has since been cleared up in discussions with its insured.” (Toroyan Decl. ¶ 4.) This statement is purportedly based on Toroyan’s personal knowledge. (Id. at ¶ 1.)

The Court finds Toroyan’s statement to be based on inadmissible hearsay pursuant to Evidence Code § 1200. Toroyan’s statement that the initial admissions were made in error is based on statements made by Plaintiff to their insurer. This statement is offered for the purpose of demonstrating that the admissions were in fact erroneous, and that relief is appropriate. Toroyan’s declaration provides no basis for her personal knowledge of this fact, instead relying on layers of extrapolation. Toroyan may have personal knowledge as to her belief that the admissions were erroneous, but she does not have personal knowledge that Plaintiff’s initial information was incorrect. As such, Toroyan’s statement constitutes inadmissible hearsay and cannot be the basis for this motion.

Even in the instance that Toroyan’s declaration was admissible to demonstrate “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect”, its details are too scant to serve that purpose. Toroyan’s declaration contains no statement as to (1) how Plaintiff’s information was incorrect, (2) in what way the information was incorrect, (3) how Plaintiff’s counsel discovered the information was incorrect, and (4) what admissions the incorrect information renders invalid. In essence, Plaintiff requests blanket relief from ten admissions based on nothing more than the vague representation of its counsel that they were based on incorrect information. While the bar for relief under C.C.P. § 2033.300 is set quite low, Plaintiff’s showing of mistake remains insufficient to clear that bar.

Despite the foregoing, the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s motion appear such that they could be rectified with the provision of more information. Given the finality of party admissions, the Court is reluctant to deny Plaintiff the relief they seek purely on grounds that they failed to submit a declaration from Plaintiff attesting to the mistaken information. As such, the Court is inclined to deny the motion without prejudice thereby permitting Plaintiff to renew the motion should they be able to cure the deficiencies.

Accordingly, Taltech’s objection to the declaration of Christina Toroyan is SUSTAINED. Plaintiff’s motion for relief from admissions is denied without prejudice.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Topa Insurance Company’s Motion for Relief from Admissions came on regularly for hearing on November 15, 2024 with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ADMISSIONS IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  November 15, 2024                          _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles