Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV15458, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV15458 Hearing Date: April 4, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On May 10, 2022, Plaintiff Francisco Geribay Enriquez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Emma Montes (“Defendant”) and Does 1-25 for motor vehicle tort.
Trial is currently scheduled for November 7, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to relieve him from the order deeming admitted matters specified in requests for admission.
Defendant asks the Court to deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300 provides:
“(a) 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.
“(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.
“(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the party who obtained the admission be permitted to pursue additional discovery related to the matter involved in the withdrawn or amended admission.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.)
“The trial court's discretion in ruling on a motion to withdraw or amend an admission is not unlimited, but must be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law and in a manner that serves the interests of justice. 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, 1420–1421 (New Albertsons).)
DISCUSSION
On March 7, 2023, Defendant served requests for admission, set one, on Plaintiff. Responses were due May 24, 2023. Plaintiff failed to provide timely responses. Defendant moved for an order deeming admitted the matters specified in the requests for admission and for sanctions. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion.
On September 12, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admission. The Court also granted Defendant’s request for sanctions and ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendant $560.00 in sanctions by October 12, 2023.
On January 3, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the September 12, 2023 order.
Plaintiff now asks the Court to set aside the September 12, 2023 order under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), arguing the ruling resulted from Plaintiff’s counsel’s mistake and excusable neglect.
The party against whom an order deeming admitted matters specified in requests for admission has been entered “may seek relief . . . by filing a motion to withdraw or amend the ‘deemed admission’ under [Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300].” (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 8:1369.5, p. 8G-23 (Cal. Practice Guide).) The court will permit a party to withdraw or amend an admission only if the court finds (1) the admission resulted from mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect and (2) the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced. (Id., ¶ 8:1386.1, p. 8G-30, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300, subd. (b).)
“The requirements for relief under [Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300] are similar to those governing relief from default under [Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b)]. The terms ‘mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect’ as used in [Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300] are given the same meanings as similar terms found in [Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b)].” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 8:1386.2, p. 8G-30, citing New Albertsons, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 1419.)
“Counsel’s failure to discharge routine professional duties is not excusable” for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 5:341.2, p. 5-103.) “ ‘Conduct falling below the professional standard of care, such as failure to timely object or to properly advance an argument, is not therefore excusable.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Generale Bank Nederland, N.V. v. Eyes of the Beholder Ltd. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1400.)
The attorney declaration attached to Plaintiff’s motion states that, as a result of a calendaring error, Plaintiff’s counsel did not serve timely responses to the requests for admission, did not file an opposition to Defendant’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in requests for admission, and did not appear at the September 12, 2023 hearing on the motion. Counsel “accept[s] 100% responsibility” for the calendaring error. The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated the September 12, 2023 order resulted from his counsel's mistake and excusable neglect.
Defendant argues that she would suffer prejudice if the Court sets aside the September 12, 2023 order because she would have to withdraw her pending motion for summary judgment, which is based on the admissions. Although Defendant may no longer be able to seek summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s admissions, an order granting Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the September 12, 2023 order will not substantially prejudice Defendant in maintaining her defense on the merits. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300, subd. (b).)
In addition, the Court orders that Plaintiff will bear the costs of any additional discovery made necessary as the result of granting Plaintiff’s motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300, subd. (c).) If Defendant seeks to recover these costs, Defendant must file a noticed motion identifying the costs and explaining why the additional discovery was made necessary by the order granting Plaintiff’s motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS IN PART the motion of Plaintiff Francisco Geribay Enriquez to set aside the Court’s September 12, 2023 order. The Court vacates the portion of the September 12, 2023 order that deemed admitted the matters specified in Defendant Emma Montes’s requests for admission. In all other respects, the Court DENIES the motion.
The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff Francisco Geribay Enriquez will bear the costs of any additional discovery made necessary by the granting of Plaintiff’s motion. If Defendant Emma Montes seeks to recover these costs, Defendant must file a noticed motion identifying the costs and explaining why the additional discovery was made necessary by the order granting Plaintiff’s motion.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.