Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV31478, Date: 2025-03-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV31478 Hearing Date: March 25, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Case number 22STCV31478
On September 26, 2022, Plaintiff Alejandro Oropeza (“Oropeza”) filed this action against Defendants Best Construction, Inc. (“Best Construction”) and Does 1-50 for general negligence. (Case number 22STCV31478.)
On October 6, 2022, Oropeza amended the complaint to include Defendant Best Interiors, Inc. (“Best Interiors”) as Doe 1. On November 10, 2022, Best Interiors filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Roes 1-20 for equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.
On January 18, 2023, the Court dismissed Best Construction without prejudice at Oropeza’s request.
B. Case number 22LBCV00844
On November 22, 2022, Plaintiff Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”) filed this action against Defendants Best Interiors and Does 1-20 for negligence.
On January 6, 2023, Best Interiors filed an answer.
On September 25, 2024, Travelers amended the complaint to include Defendant Westside Building Material Corporation (“Westside”) as Doe 1.
C. The Court relates and consolidates the cases
On December 13, 2023, the Court found that case numbers 22STCV31478 and 22LBCV00844 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Case number 22STCV31478 became the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 31 at the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes.
On December 21, 2023, the Court consolidated the cases based on the parties’ stipulation.
D. This motion
On February 13, 2025, Oropeza filed a motion to amend or withdraw an admission. The motion was set for hearing on March 12, 2025. No party has filed an opposition. The Court continued the hearing to March 25, 2025.
Trial is currently scheduled for September 8, 2025.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Oropeza asks the Court for leave to amend or withdraw an admission.
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.
“(c) 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.)
DISCUSSION
In New Albertson’s Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403 (New Albertson’s), the Court of Appeal explained: “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 Albertson’s, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1420-1421.)
Applying this standard, the Court of Appeal held the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s request to withdraw an admission because the admission was based on a mistaken belief that a photograph showed a bag of ice on the floor. In fact, the item in the photograph was a wrapper for a cervical collar. The Court of Appeal concluded the error in identifying the item was not “clearly inexcusable.” (New Albertson’s, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 1421.)
Here, Oropeza asserts that, due an inadvertent mistake, he admitted the truth of request for admission number 6, which asked: “Admit that prior to the INCIDENT an employee for Rosendin moved the drywall that was leaning against a wall at the PROJECT.” Although Oropeza’s moving papers state that Best Construction served this request for admission, Oropeza has attached to his motion (1) requests for admission served by Best Interiors and (2) Oropeza’s response to those requests. The Court will assume that Best Interiors served the requests for admission at issue.
According
to Oropeza, due to mistake, inadvertence, and neglect, his former counsel misunderstood Oropeza’s answer to Best Interiors’
request for admission, number 6, and erroneously admitted the request instead
of denying it.
The Court finds that (1) Oropeza’s admission was the result of Oropeza’s mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, (2) the mistake, inadvertence, or neglect was not clearly inexcusable, and (3) permitting Oropeza to amend or withdraw the admission will not substantially prejudice the parties served with this motion. (See New Albertson’s, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1420-1421.)
The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
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.