Judge Jill Feeney, Case 20STCV27621 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.

Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at sscdept30@lacourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit.

Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.

If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email.

If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present.

Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.

Plaintiff argues that her requests for admissions were deemed admitted because Defendant failed to notify the Court that it did receive verified responses to RFAs prior to the hearing on the motion to deem RFAs admitted. Because the RFAs were deemed admitted due to a mistake, the motion should be granted.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to provide facts that demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s motion is a disguised motion to reconsider. Defendant maintains the motion is untimely because the 10-day time limit to file a motion to reconsider already passed.

CCP § 2033.300(a) states, “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.” CCP §2033.300(b) states, “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.” The “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect” under CCP § 2033.300 have similar meanings as those words used in CCP § 473(b). (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1419.)

“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, Inc. v. Superior Court¿(2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420–21.)

Plaintiff argues that her requests for admission were improperly deemed admitted because Defendant failed to notify the Court that it received verified responses before the hearing. Plaintiff requests that the admissions be withdrawn and the order deeming the admissions admitted be vacated.

Plaintiff’s RFAs were deemed admitted on May 24, 2022. (Ogbogu Decl., ¶2.) Plaintiff previously failed to timely respond to Defendants’ discovery requests because she was out of the state and Plaintiff’s Counsel was unable to reach her. (Id., ¶3.) On October 26, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel served Defendants’ counsel with verified responses, including responses to RFAs. (Id.,¶5.) On December 6, 2021, Defendants’ counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel he would proceed with the motions to compel discovery responses in order to pursue sanctions despite the motions being moot after Plaintiff served responses. (Id., ¶8.) At the May 24, 2022 hearing, the Court granted Defendants’ motion and deemed the RFAs admitted because Defendants failed to notify the Court that he had received verified responses and Plaintiff did not realize the error until after the hearing due to a bereavement. (Id., ¶¶9-10.)

Here, Plaintiff’s evidence shows that verified responses to her RFAs were served in advance of the hearing on the motion to deem RFAs admitted. Defendant argues that no good cause exists to grant Plaintiff’s motion because Plaintiff cannot show the RFAs were admitted due to inadvertence, mistake, or excusable neglect. To the contrary, Defendants’ counsel failed to notify the Court of its receipt of Plaintiff’s responses. Plaintiff also neglected to oppose Defendant’s motion or notice the error until after the hearing on Defendant’s motion to deem RFAs admitted due to a bereavement. Defendant’s argument that RFAs were appropriately admitted due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply timely is without merit. Even if served late, motions to deem RFAs admitted may not be granted if verified responses to RFAs are served before the hearing on the motion. (Code Civ. Pro. section 2033.220.) Because the RFAs were admitted due to mistake and counsels’ neglect, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.