Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV00415, Date: 2023-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00415, Date: 2023-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00415 Hearing Date: January 10, 2024 Dept: C

AWI Builders v. Rachlin Partners et al.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00415

HEARING: 1/10/24 @ 9:30 AM

Defendant Harrison’s Motion for Leave to Amend Responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 14 and 15 is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Jennifer Harrison moves to amend her responses to Plaintiff AWI Builders, Inc.’s (Plaintiff) Requests for Admission.

No Opposition as of January 9, 2024.

Background

This is a breach of contract lawsuit involving Defendants Rachlin Partners (Rachlin) and Jennifer Harrison (Harrison) (collectively Defendants) and the Norwalk School District (the District). Plaintiff contends that it was hired as a general contractor to construct the school buildings and fields for “Nowalk H.S. – Athletic Field & Stadium” and Defendants were hired as the architects. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached their contract with the District and caused harm to Plaintiff, who is a known beneficiary of the contract.

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. 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.” (CCP § 2033.300(a) and (b).)

Discussion

Here, Harrison seeks to amend her response to two Requests regarding whether Defendants provided repair estimates to the District. Harrison denied the Requests based on her not recalling having provided repair estimates and Rachlin not normally providing repair estimates. (Harrison Decl., ¶ 5.) Harrison identified several documents within the 61,000 pages sent in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, which could be categorized as repair estimates. (Harrison Decl., ¶ 6.) Thus, Harrison may amend her response because her initial response was a result of mistake and Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the amendment. Therefore, Harrison’s Motion for Leave to Amend Responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 14 and 15 is granted.

Accordingly, Harrison’s Motion for Leave to Amend Responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 14 and 15 is GRANTED.