Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV26075 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV26075, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV26075 Hearing Date: January 26, 2023 Dept: 30

Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

January 26, 2023

21STCV26075

Motion for Order to Relieve Defendant from Plaintiff’s Deemed Admissions (Set Two) filed by Defendant Mondragon Camacho.

DECISION

All parties are ordered to appear at the hearing.

The motion is granted.

Discovery and motions cutoff dates, as well as all other dates, are to comport with the April 12, 2023 trial date.

If Plaintiff requires additional time, the Court will move the trial date. This may be discussed at the hearing.

Moving party to provide notice.

Background

This is an action for general negligence and motor vehicle negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in July 2019. Plaintiff Jennifer Movsessian filed her Complaint against Defendant Mondragon Camacho on July 15, 2021.

On November 7, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motions to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted and Compel Responses to Requests for Production and Inspection of Documents, Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, and Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories against Defendant.

On December 8, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motion to be relieved from deemed admissions.

Summary

Moving Arguments

Defendant argues that her failure to timely respond to Plaintiff’s RFAs was due to her counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Counsel argues that he was unable to serve responses because he was overseas between July 14 and August 14, 2022 and unexpectedly lost access to his firm’s client database and email.

Counsel also contends also just assigned to the case in until October 13, 2022, after many attorneys left his firm.

Opposing Arguments

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s motion is untimely because discovery is closed. Plaintiff also argues Defendant’s counsel had a month to serve responses and does not explain why he did not. Finally, Plaintiff argues granting the motion would severely prejudice Plaintiff because trial would be further delayed, and Plaintiff’s litigation costs would be grossly increased.

Reply Arguments

Defendant reiterates the arguments from her motion.

Legal Standard

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.)

Discussion

Defendant seeks to withdraw her deemed admissions on the grounds that her counsel failed to provide timely responses due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

The Court notes that the deadline for discovery motions to be heard was December 28, 2022. Although trial was continued to April 12, 2023, all discovery motions and cutoff dates were to comport with the January 12, 2023 trial date. The hearing on this motion is thus untimely.

However, given the difficulty of scheduling matters in the PI Hub, the Court will consider the substance of this motion in this one instance.

Defendant’s counsel testifies that he was overseas between July 14 and August 15, 2022 and did not have access to his client database and email. (Hemati Decl., ¶4.) This matter was assigned to him on October 13, 2022. (Id., ¶5.) Counsel’s firm lost 15 attorneys between June and October 2022. (Id., ¶8.)

Defendant’s counsel’s inability to work overseas would not have affected this matter because he was not assigned to the matter until October 2022, after he returned to the United States. Counsel explains that the implosion of his law firm resulted in the failures here. The Court finds that the standard is met in terms of mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect.

With respect to prejudice, the issues raised by Plaintiff can be cured by having discovery and motions cutoff dates to comport with the new trial date.