Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: BC692559, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC692559    Hearing Date: May 4, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.                   INTRODUCTION

On February 1, 2018, Plaintiff Jaleel Melendez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Pinetree Terrace Apartments and Mabry Management Co., Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) for injuries arising from a slip and fall. Plaintiff alleges that on June 12, 2017, he slipped and fell on a liquid substance on the common area staircase.

On May 5, 2022, Defendants served Requests for Admission, Set One, on Plaintiff by mail and email. Plaintiff failed to respond. On December 20, 2022, the Court granted Defendants’ unopposed motion to deem admitted Defendants’ Requests for Admission against Plaintiff.

On March 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from the deeming of the Requests for Admissions admitted on the grounds of inadvertence, mistake, or excusable neglect.

II.                LEGAL STANDARD

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300, subd. (a).) “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300, subd. (b).)

“The court may impose conditions on the granting of the motion that are just, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) An order that the party who obtained the admission be permitted to pursue additional discovery related to the matter involved in the withdrawn or amended admission. (2) An order that the costs of any additional discovery be borne in whole or in part by the party withdrawing or amending the admission.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300, subd. (c).)

Because the law strongly favors trial and disposition on the merits, any doubts in ruling on a motion to withdraw or amend an admission must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1408.)

III.             DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests that the admitted Requests for Admission be set aside and that Plaintiff be permitted to serve amended responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One. Plaintiff attaches the proposed responses to his motion as Exhibit A.

1.      Timeline of Events

Plaintiff filed this action in February 2018. In October 2021, Defendants first served Requests for Admission, Set One, on Plaintiff. (Henke Decl., ¶ 5.) In December 2021, Plaintiff responded to defense counsel’s meet and confer, stating that he would agree to respond to the Requests for Admissions, but he was still looking for representation. (Henke Decl., ¶ 7.) Plaintiff’s accident occurred after these Requests for Admissions were served. (Melendez Motion p. 1: 20-21.) After not hearing from Plaintiff, Defendants filed a Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted in March 2021. (Henke Decl., ¶ 10.) This Motion was denied because Plaintiff did not consent to electronic service, and the Motion was not served on Plaintiff directly. (04/20/22 Minute Order.)

On May 5, 2022, Defendants re-served Requests for Admission, Set One, on Plaintiff via mail and email. (Henke Decl., ¶ 12.) On June 16, 2022, a Trial Setting Conference was held, and Plaintiff appeared in person. Defendants state that, at this conference, Plaintiff acknowledged the Requests for Admissions and “was informed by this Court that Plaintiff has to take action in responding as there are consequences if the requests are ignored.” (Henke Decl., ¶ 13.)

However, Plaintiff failed to respond. On July 25, 2022, Defendants sent a meet and confer letter requesting responses by August 4, 2022. (Henke Decl., ¶ 15.) No responses were received, and Defendants filed a Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted on August 24, 2022. (Henke Decl., ¶ 16.) Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing, and the Requests for Admissions were deemed admitted. (12/20/22 Minute Order.)

On January 12, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, relying upon the Requests for Admissions. On March 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Relieved from Deemed Admissions. On March 10, 2023, the Court continued the Motion for Summary Judgment to May 5, 2023, the Final Status Conference to June 23, 2023, and the Trial to July 7, 2023. Further, the Court ruled that discovery and motion cut-off dates would not be continued and remain related to the March 17, 2023 original trial date. (03/10/2023 Minute Order.)

The five-year statutory deadline for this case is on August 1, 2023, and no stipulation has been made to extend this deadline.

2.      Excusable Neglect

Plaintiff moves for relief on the grounds of excusable neglect. Plaintiff states that, in December 2021, he was in a car accident that caused him to break bones and get a concussion. As a result of this accident, he states he was unable to represent himself or seek an attorney. (Melendez Decl. ¶ 2.)   

            Although the Court acknowledges that an accident resulting in temporary disability may provide grounds for relief in some circumstances, this is not one of those circumstances.  Plaintiff’s declaration does not explain how this accident prevented him from responding to the Requests for Admission for fifteen months following the accident. Further, Plaintiff’s presence at the June 16, 2022 Trial Setting Conference undermines his statement that his injuries prevented him from participating in this action and responding to discovery. Defendants state that, at this conference, Plaintiff acknowledged the Requests for Admissions and “was informed by this Court that Plaintiff has to take action in responding as there are consequences if the requests are ignored.” (Henke Decl., ¶ 13.)[1]  

Plaintiff’s declaration is insufficient to support the proposition that his injuries prevented him from responding to the RFAs.  Plaintiff fails to provide any medical records or information that informs the analysis regarding this injury. Nor is there any evidence that Plaintiff’s injury was disabling during the entire seven month time period from May 2022 (when the Requests for Admissions were re-served) to December 2022 (when the Requests were deemed admitted), to constitute excusable neglect, especially considering Plaintiff’s presence at the June 2022 Trial Setting Conference where he was warned of the consequences of failing to respond. Based on Plaintiff’s declaration, the Court cannot find the failure to respond to the request for admission are excusable.   

3.      Substantial Prejudice

Additionally, the Court finds Defendants will be substantially prejudiced if Plaintiff were granted leave to amend the requests for admission. As stated above, Defendants Motion for Summary Judgement is scheduled for May 5, 2023 (tomorrow). Trial is scheduled for July 7, 2023, and the five-year deadline is August 1, 2023.

If Plaintiff were permitted to withdraw/amend his Requests for Admissions, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment would effectively be moot because it is based almost entirely on the Requests for Admissions. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this Motion for Summary Judgment. Thus, the granting of this request would effectively permit Plaintiff to force Defendants to withdraw their Motion for Summary Judgment.

Moreover, as mentioned at the March 10, 2023 hearing, discovery is closed. Permitting Plaintiff to amend the Requests for Admissions would presumably force Defendants to move to reopen discovery, and the ripple effect of having to recommence the full panoply of discovery to recover from the withdrawal of the admissions. As discussed further below, the prejudice to Defendants given the timeline is significant.   

For example, if Defendants wished to file a new Motion for Summary Judgment based on discovery other than the Requests for Admission, they would be unable to given the proximity to trial.  A motion for summary judgment must be filed with a 75-day notice (or more if the motion is served by mail) and the hearing must be held 30 days prior to trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(a).) Thus, the latest day to serve a summary judgment motion for the July 7, 2023 trial date would have been March 24, 2023.  Further, due to the five-year deadline (including the six month extension), the trial must commence by August 1, 2023, absent a stipulation otherwise.  Even if the trial were pushed back to the last day, the summary judgment motion would have had to have been filed by April 18, 2023.  Thus, the granting of this motion would effectively make it impossible for Defendants to file a Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Court finds that Defendants would be substantially prejudiced if Plaintiff were permitted to amend the Requests for Admission.  

IV.             CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to amend responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One, is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  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.

Dated this 4th day of May 2023