Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 19-01120164, Date: 2022-11-29 Tentative Ruling

(1) Motion - Other (2) CMC

Tentative Ruling: (1) Plaintiff Moves for Relief from Waiver of Right to Make Objections to Requests for Admission. Despite the title of the motion, it appears that the relief sought is actually an order allowing the withdrawal or amendment of admissions. Such a motion is authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300. While that provision is not cited in the moving papers, it is clear from the opposition that Defendant understood that Plaintiff was likely seeking such an order. (See Oppn at 6:21-28.)

“The proposition that a trial court may construe a motion bearing one label as a different type of motion is one that has existed for many decades. ‘The nature of a motion is determined by the nature of the relief sought, not by the label attached to it.’” (Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 187, 193.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300 provides, in part:

(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.

Section 2033.300 is designed to eliminate undeserved windfalls obtained through requests for admission and to further the policy favoring resolution of lawsuits on the merits. Therefore, any doubts must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Shanahan) (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420.)

Here, Plaintiff has met her burden of demonstrating that the admissions were the result of the mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect of her counsel. Attorney Roark submits a declaration explaining that a number of factors caused him to miss the initial response deadline and then to subsequently fail to provide responses or an opposition to the Motion to Deem Requests Admitted. (Roarke Decl., ¶¶5-11.)

Defendant has not demonstrated that the amendment of the admissions will substantially prejudice Defendant in maintaining its defense on the merits. Rather, the only prejudice claimed by Defendant is delay and costs associated with filing and opposing motions related to the requests for admission. (Oppn at 7:4-8.)

The court, however, notes Plaintiff indicated she would serve amended responses by the time of the hearing and, as far as the court is aware, this has not been done. Therefore, the court grants the motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300 on the condition that verified, code compliant responses to the requests for admission must be served on opposing counsel within ten days of the entry of this order. If responses are not timely provided, then the admissions will remain deemed admitted. 

MP to give notice.