Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22BBV01020, Date: 2025-01-03 Tentative Ruling

REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT PER CRC 3.1308

The Court will attempt to post all Tentative Rulings at least the day prior to the hearing by 3:00 p.m.; however, the Court does not post Tentative Rulings for all matters.  

The Court will indicate in the Tentative Ruling whether the Court is requesting oral argument.  For cases where the Court is not requesting argument, then the Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) where the Court requests notice of intent to appear.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, a 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.

Notice of the ruling must be served as indicated in the tentative.  Remote appearances are permitted for all law and motion unless otherwise indicated by the Court.  

Case Number: 22BBV01020    Hearing Date: January 3, 2025    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ADMISSIONS

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. Plaintiff’s previous motion for relief was denied without prejudice, as the Court found the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel was insufficient to establish “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect”. Taltech opposes the motion and plaintiff replies.

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

Plaintiff seeks relief from his response to Defendant’s RFA propounded August 16, 2024. Plaintiff now identifies that it wishes to change its answers to Taltech’s RFA Nos. three and four. These requests are as follows:

RFA No. 3: Admit that following the incident, the insured never replaced the subject sprinkler.

RFA No. 4: Admit that you have no evidence to show that the subject sprinkler was replaced following the incident.

(Mot. p. 4.)

Plaintiff previously answered ‘admit” to both of the above RFA. Plaintiff now seeks to amend its answer to reflect the newly learned information that their insured did replace the sprinkler.

Plaintiff submits the declaration of its counsel Sally Noma (Noma) in support of their claim that the previous answers were rendered as the result of “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Noma states that as part of its investigation, Plaintiff collected the sprinkler in question. (Noma Decl. ¶ 5.) Noma states that she personally spoke to the insured on October 4, 2024, during which time she asked him if the sprinkler had been replaced. (Noma Decl. ¶ 7.) The insured confirmed the sprinkler had been replaced. (Id.) Noma also states that the attorney who prepared the previous responses is no longer with the firm, thus Noma is unaware of the reason the incorrect responses were initially provided. (Noma Decl. ¶ 4.)

The Court begins by addressing Taltech’s objections to the Noma declaration. Taltech objects to (1) Noma’s statement regarding the call with the insured and (2) Noma’s statement that she does not know the reason the original responses were incorrect. Taltech’s objections are that these statements are impermissible hearsay and that they lack personal knowledge.

While the Court ruled the declaration in Plaintiff’s previous motion did rely on inadmissible hearsay, the Noma declaration is of a different nature. The previous declaration read, “In preparing responses to Requests, incorrect information was presented by my client, which has since been cleared up in discussions with its insured.” The Court found this statement relied on hearsay because it asserted that the responses were incorrect based on the out of court statement of the insured to Plaintiff, which was then relayed indirectly to Plaintiff’s counsel.

The Court need not address whether the declaration is based on hearsay; the issue is whether relief should be granted under the standards of  C.C.P. §2033.300(b).  Here Plaintiff did not provide any declaration directly from the insured that any mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect occurred.   For example, the insured did not advise what was said to the attorney handling the case which resulted in the original admissions.   Since request for admissions must be verified, the insured did not explain in a declaration why the insured verified incorrect answers. (C.C.P. §2033.210).  The issue that the answers were wrong does not by itself result in relief if the incorrect answer was not based on mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect but inexcusable neglect or from a carefree review of answers under oath.  (Hearn v. Howard, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1206) (general ignorance of the law or negligence in discovering the law is not a basis for relief).

The Court also finds no evidence that prejudice would befall either party upon granting this motion; however, Plaintiff has not met the burden.  As such, the denial of this motion will again be without prejudice.  Taltech has briefed no reason why the correction of the admissions would substantially prejudice their ability to defend this action on the merits; however, that does not excuse Plaintiff from the burden to who mistake or neglect before the Court determines prejudice.

Accordingly, 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 January 3, 2025 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:  January 3, 2025                                 _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles