Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 19STCV08965, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Erik Kitter and Nicholas Hartstein (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

This consolidated action consists of actions arising out of a landlord/tenant relationship.

On April 17, 2023, the Court granted four unopposed discovery motions filed by Defendant, including a motion to deem Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions (“RFAs”) admitted due to Plaintiffs’ failure to provide responses (the “RFA Motion”).

On December 15, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to withdraw admissions (the “Motion”). The Motion requests that the Court permit Plaintiffs to withdraw their admissions because they served responses during the pendency of the RFA Motion.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2033.300, a party may withdraw or amend an admission made in response to a request for admission on a noticed motion if the court determines that: (1) the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect; and (2) the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits. (CCP § 2033.300, subds. (a)-(b).) 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. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420.) 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. (Id. at 1420-21.) The court may impose any just conditions on the granting of the motion. (CCP § 2033.300, subd. (c).)

Plaintiffs provided Defendant with verified responses to the RFAs on February 22, 2023 and February 23, 2023. (Declaration of Daniel Lavi (“Lavi Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-4, Exhibits A-B.) Plaintiffs did not oppose the RFA Motion because they understood the discovery dispute to be resolved but did not dispute Defendant’s entitlement to monetary sanctions. (Lavi Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs’ counsel declares that it was reported to the Court that Plaintiffs had provided responses. (Id.) Plaintiffs learned that the entirety of the RFA Motion was granted when their counsel began reviewing the evidence filed in support of Defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment. (Lavi Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs did not file the instant Motion earlier due to a bankruptcy stay. (Lavi Decl. ¶ 10.)

Construing CCP section 2033.300 in favor of the party seeking relief, the Court finds that the Motion adequately demonstrates that Plaintiffs’ RFAs being deemed admitted was the result of mistake or neglect. Plaintiffs provided their RFA responses during the pendency of the RFA Motion and believed that the RFA Motion was therefore moot with the exception of monetary sanctions. Furthermore, though Defendant claims he would be prejudiced by the withdrawal of the admissions, the Court notes that Defendant was aware that Plaintiffs had provided RFA responses before the April 17, 2023 hearing on the RFA Motion.

The Court GRANTS the Motion. At the time of the hearing, the parties may discuss the possibility of continuing the trial date to accommodate additional time to prepare for trial in light of the withdrawal of the RFAs.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court