Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV01124, Date: 2025-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01124    Hearing Date: January 9, 2025    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           WW Westwood LP v. Zakhor, et al.

CASE NO.:                22SMCV01124

MOTION:                  Motion for Relief from Admissions

HEARING DATE:   1/9/2025

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300 permits amendment or withdrawal of ‘deemed admissions’ ordered by the court under §2033.280. CCP section 2033.300 states: 

(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the party who obtained the admission be permitted to pursue additional discovery related to the matter involved in the withdrawn or amended admission.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.”  

“Because the law strongly favors trail 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, 1420-21.)

“A mistake of fact is when a person understands the facts to be other than they are; a mistake of law is when a person knows the facts as they really are but has a mistaken belief as to the legal consequences of those facts . . . [i]nadvertence is defined as lack of heedfulness or attentiveness, inattention, fault from negligence . . . [and] ‘excusable neglect’ referred to in the section is that neglect which might have been the act of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances.” (Baratti v. Baratti (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 917, 921.)

ANALYSIS

Defendant Mansour Zakhor, D.D.S. moves for an order relieving him from admissions, and permitting him to serve responses to Plaintiff W.W. Westwood, L.P.’s (“Plaintiff”) Request for Admissions, Set No. 1.

Defendant has addressed the two issues identified by the Court in the prior motion. First, Defendant now substantiates his own mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect with specific facts showing the efforts he undertook to correct counsel’s inaction. (Zakhor Decl., ¶¶ 4-7.) Second, Defendant has provided facially code compliant responses to the outstanding discovery. Defendant attaches proposed Responses to Requests for Admission and Form Interrogatory no. 17. (Berokim Decl., Exs. 8-9.)

Moreover, the record does not show that Plaintiff was substantially prejudiced in maintaining the action following the admissions or would be prejudiced by withdrawal of the admissions. Plaintiff claims to have been “precluded from gaining specific knowledge regarding Defendant’s defenses and positions, including factual information and the identity of relevant documents and witnesses due to Defendant’s failure to respond.” (Griffin Decl., ¶ 19.) Plaintiff does not show mere delay in obtaining information could be considered substantial prejudice to its action.  Plaintiff also argues that a planned motion for summary judgment relied upon the deemed admissions.  That fact also does not establish prejudice.

Plaintiff requests that the court order the following “additional discovery”: (1) a further deposition of Zakhor by February 14, 2025; (2) supplemental and code-complaint responses to Form Interrogatory (FI) No. 17.1 to be served concurrently with its responses to the RFAs by January 13, 2025; and (3) an order deeming any objections to the RFAs waived. The Court is not inclined to condition the motion on additional discovery orders. Such orders are simply not necessary in these circumstances. Plaintiff does not explain how Defendant’s failure to respond to the RFAs requires an additional party deposition. As to the second request, Defendant has already attached a proposed response to FI no. 17.1. Finally, any objections to the RFAs have already been waived by a failure to respond initially, and the proposed responses to the RFAs lodge no objections. Otherwise, there is sufficient time to complete any remaining discovery in this matter by the April 2024 discovery cut-off.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.