Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV21671, Date: 2024-04-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV21671 Hearing Date: April 22, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Case number 22STCV21671
On July 5, 2022, Plaintiff Juan Gonzalez Serrano (“Serrano”) filed an action against Defendants LAD-P, LLC dba Porsche Downtown LA (“Porsche”), Victoria Carbone (“Carbone”), and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. (Case number 22STCV21671.)
On August 10, 2022, Defendants LAD-P, LLC dba Porsche Downtown LA and Carbone filed an answer.
B. Case number 22STCV36892
On November 22, 2022, Carbone filed an action against Serrano and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. (Case number 22STCV36892.)
On February 7, 2023, Serrano filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Carbone, Porsche, and Roes 1-25 for indemnity, declaratory relief, contribution, and apportionment of negligence. On March 8, 2023, Carbone and Porsche filed an answer.
On March 28, 2023, Carbone amended the complaint to include Defendant Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) as Doe 1. On June 23, 2023, Lyft filed an answer.
C. The Court relates and consolidates the cases
On September 29, 2023, the Court found that case numbers 22STCV36892 and 22STCV21671 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Case number 22STCV21671 became the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes.
On January 26, 2024, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated request to consolidate the cases for all purposes. Case number 22STCV21671 remained the lead case.
Trial is currently scheduled for August 12, 2024.
D. Motion for relief from order deeming admitted matters specified in request for admission
On January 25, 2024, Carbone filed a motion to be relieved of the Court’s December 21, 2023 order deeming admitted matters specified in Serrano's request for admission. On February 16, 2024, Serrano filed an opposition. On February 21, 2024, Carbone filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing on the motion from March 1, 2024 to April 22, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Carbone asks the Court to grant relief from the order deeming admitted the matters specified in Serrano’s request for admission.
Serrano 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).)
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.)
DISCUSSION
On February 7, 2023, Serrano served request for admission, set one, on Carbone. Serrano asked Carbone to admit only one fact:
“Admit that you cannot establish financial responsibility as required [b]y California Civil Code Section [3]333.4, enacted by the voters of the State of California through Initiative Measure Proposition 213 and effective November 5, 1996, for the time of the accident which forms the basis of this lawsuit.”
On April 22 or 23, 2023, Carbone served an unverified response. The response asserted 15 “general” objections and then stated:
“Objection. This Request seeks a legal conclusion. Plaintiff further objects to this request for statement of admission on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, seeks legal conclusions, lacks foundation, calls for speculation, and seeks expert witness information in violation of Cal. Civ. Proc. Code§§ 2034.210,2034.220, and 2034.270. [¶] Subject [to] and without waiving the objection Responding Party Responds: Deny.”
On November 13, 2023, Serrano filed a motion to deem admitted the matters specified in the requests for admission. Serrano’s motion asserted that “[Carbone] has failed, and continues to fail, to provide responses to [the requests for admission].” (Motion for order that request for admission propounded on Plaintiff be deemed admitted p. 3.) Serrano did not attach a copy of Carbone’s response to the request for admission. Carbone did not file an opposition to Serrano’s motion. On December 21, 2023, the Court granted the motion and deemed admitted the matters specified in the request for admission.
Carbone now asks the Court to grant relief from the December 21, 2023 order, arguing the ruling resulted from Carbone’s counsel’s inadvertence, mistake, or reasonable neglect. Carbone points to her service of an unverified response to the request for admission on April 23, 2023. (Motion p. 3.) Moreover, Carbone argues, her counsel attempted to file an opposition to Serrano’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in the request for admission and believed the opposition had been filed.
On December 20, 2023, having learned that her opposition had not been filed or served, Carbone’s counsel attempted to file her opposition and an ex parte request to shorten the time to oppose Serrano’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in the request for admission. The Court rejected the filings as untimely.
On December 20, 2023, Carbone served a verification of her response to Serrano’s request for admission.
Based on this chronology, the Court finds that the mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect of Carbone’s counsel in failing to bring (1) Carbone’s April 22 or 23, 2023 response to the request for admission and (2) Carbone’s December 20, 2023 verification to the Court’s attention at or before the December 21, 2023 hearing caused the Court to grant Serrano’s motion to deem admitted the matter specified in his request for admission.
“[N]o verification is required to preserve objections (see [Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.240, subd. (a)]). Therefore, an unverified response containing both answers and objections is effective to preserve those objections. The lack of verification renders the fact-specific answers untimely; but that only creates a right to move for orders and sanctions [under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280] [citation]. It does not result in a waiver of the objections made.” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 8:1364.2, p. 8G-22.) Therefore, Carbone’s unverified response to Serrano’s request for admission preserved the objections asserted in the responses. Moreover, Carbone’s service of a verification on December 20, 2023 – before the December 21, 2023 hearing – left Serrano without a viable motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
Serrano argues that he would suffer substantial prejudice if the Court relieves Carbone of the ruling deeming admitted the matters specified in the request for admission because (1) “it would affect [Serrano’s] ability and intent to file a Motion for Summary Judgment based on the deemed admission” (Opposition p. 2), (2) “the withdrawn admission may allow for [Carbone] to recover more general damages for pain and suffering” (Opposition p. 8), and (3) granting Plaintiff’s motion would force Defendant to incur further costs and expense on additional discovery in preparation for the fast-approaching May 21, 2024 trial date in this matter, which may be continued per Stipulation but nonetheless, cause further financial hardship on defense (Opposition p. 8).
The Court concludes that granting Carbone’s motion for relief from the order deeming admitted request for admission will not substantially prejudice Serrano in maintaining his action or defense on the merits. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300, subd. (b).)
The Court grants the motion and vacates the portion of the December 21, 2023 order that deemed admitted the matters specified in Serrano's request for admission.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Victoria Carbone’s motion for relief from the Court’s order granting Defendant Juan Gonzalez Serrano’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in his request for admission. The Court vacates the portion of the Court’s December 21, 2023 order granting Defendant Juan Gonzalez Serrano’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in his request for admission and deeming the matters admitted. The Court does not modify the other rulings in the December 21, 2023 order.
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.