Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 22STCV10702 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed. Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; (3) violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act; (4) open book account; (5) account stated; and (6) quantum meruit. On February 9, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to deem its Requests for Admissions (“RFAs”) admitted and ordered that Plaintiff’s RFAs be admitted by Moving Defendant due to Moving Defendant’s failure to submit timely responses. On January 27, 2023, Moving Defendant filed a motion for relief from waiver of objections (the “Motion”).

Where a party is served with requests for admission but fails to serve a timely response, the party to whom the requests for admission were directed waives an objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (a).) To obtain a waiver to objections to requests for admission, the party seeking the waiver must show that: (1) the party served a response that is in substantial compliance with CCP 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. (CCP § 2033.280, subd. (a)(1)-(2).) A trial court has broad discretion to regulate discovery. (Mannino v. Superior Court (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 776, 778.) The standard used to analyze mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect for relief from default set forth in CCP section 473 also applies to failure to serve a timely response to a discovery demand. (City of Fresno v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1459, 1467.)

Moving Defendant served responses to Plaintiff’s RFAs on December 16, 2022. (Declaration of Stacy Dasaro (“Dasaro Decl.”) ¶ 10.) Moving Defendant’s responses were served late because Moving Defendant was dealing with a family health emergency. (See Dasaro Decl. ¶ 6.)

The Court finds that Moving Defendant’s failure to serve timely responses was due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect caused by a family emergency. For this reason and because it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motion. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

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