Judge: Michael C. Kelley, Case: 20AVCV00773, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20AVCV00773    Hearing Date: September 13, 2022    Dept: A15

Background

This medical malpractice case was initiated on October 19, 2020, by Plaintiff Rafael Ortiz (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant Lancaster Hospital Corporation dba Palmdale Regional Medical Center (“Defendant”) regarding an injury Plaintiff sustained while a patient at Defendant’s hospital. Plaintiff was admitted to Palmdale Regional Medical Center on October 19, 2019 for “abdominal bleed.” While admitted, Plaintiff was receiving intravenous fluids to treat his dehydration and dizziness.

Plaintiff alleges that, when he needed to use the restroom during the early hours of October 20, 2019, Defendant’s certified nursing assistant merely walked with Plaintiff to the restroom and closed the door, rather than entering the restroom and assisting Plaintiff. Alone in the restroom, Plaintiff fell to the ground, fracturing his ribs.

Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint on October 19, 2021, alleging two causes of action for (1) medical negligence and (2) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. After an unsuccessful demurrer, Defendant answered on January 25, 2022. On July 12, 2022, this Court granted Defendant’s unopposed discovery motions, including a Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted, because Plaintiff had failed to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests.

On August 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order Permitting Plaintiff to Withdraw Facts Deemed Admitted. On August 5, 2022, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

Analysis

Motion to Withdraw Admission—"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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300, subd. (a).) However, the court may only permit withdrawal 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.” (Id., § 2033.300, subd. (b).)

Here, Plaintiff brings this motion to withdraw the admissions the Court granted, on the grounds that his failures to respond to discovery and oppose the motion were due to his attorney’s mistakes, inadvertence, and excusable neglect. His attorney’s declaration, however, is wanting for details. Based on the information before the Court, it surmises the following timeline:

Defendant propounded the Requests for Admission (Set One) on January 25, 2022.

According to the declaration of Plaintiff’s attorney, Samuel Ogbogu, Mr. Ogbogu’s sister passed away on May 22, 2022. (Pl.’s Mot. Withdraw Facts Deemed Admitted at Decl. Ogbogu ¶ 6.)

On June 15, 2022, and after attempting to meet and confer but receiving no response, Defendant filed the Motion to Have Requests for Admission Deemed Admitted. According to Mr. Ogbogu, it was around this time that he became sick and was unable to prepare his client’s discovery responses. (Pl.’s Mot. Withdraw Facts Deemed Admitted at Decl. Ogbogu ¶ 5.) Confusingly, he also claims that it is around this time that he had to leave the country because his sister became ill, despite the fact that he also attests his sister passed away three weeks prior. (Id. at Decl. Ogbogu ¶ 6.)

Mr. Ogbogu is also vague as to his return date, except to attest that he was again out of the country between June 22 and June 27, 2022 to attend his sister’s burial; and that he then vacationed between July 12 and July 19, 2022 due to the “emotional condition of this experience.” (Pl.’s Mot. Withdraw Facts Deemed Admitted at Decl. Ogbogu ¶ 7.) He attests that, because he was away, he did not note the date of the hearings on Defendant’s discovery motions, and therefore did not oppose them.

On July 12, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to deem the matters in Defendant’s Requests for Admission (Set One) admitted against Plaintiff. This hearing coincided with Mr. Ogbogu’s vacation.

Mistake, Inadvertence, or Excusable Neglect and Prejudice to Defendant

The statute for relief from admissions deemed admitted:

differs from the discretionary provision in section 473, subdivision (b) in that the former requires not only a showing of “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect,” but also a showing that “the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits” (§ 2033.300, subd. (b)). Under the discretionary provision in section 473, subdivision (b), in contrast, the absence of substantial prejudice is an important factor to consider rather than a requirement.

(New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420.)

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, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at 1420–1421.)

Mr. Ogbogu should have provided more details with this motion. Not only did he fail to serve discovery responses, he never informed Defendant of these difficulties, nor requested any extensions, despite Defendant’s counsel’s attempts to meet and confer. (Def. Decl. Crawley Supp. Opp’n Mot. Withdraw Facts ¶¶ 6-7.) Further still, he offers no explanation for why he failed to provide responses or contact Defendant between January 25, 2022 and whenever his difficulties began to arise. He did not even file a reply to Defendant’s opposition.

As for the information he does provide, it indicates that Mr. Ogbogu left his practice for over a month, but seemingly did not leave a procedure in place to keep abreast of the motions that would inevitably be filed in his active cases. This carelessness inconvenienced Defendant and this Court, and imperiled his client’s lawsuit.

Nevertheless, the strong policy in favor of adjudication on the merits urges this Court to grant Plaintiff’s motion. The Court understands that personal problems can impair a lawyer’s judgment. Here, Mr. Ogbogu attests to traumatic experiences that could reasonably cause an attorney to unintentionally neglect his professional obligations. His behavior is not so clearly inexcusable as to overcome the strong policy in favor of relief.

Furthermore, Defendant has not shown it would be substantially prejudiced by the Court’s grant of this motion. Plaintiff has since provided responses to its Requests for Admission (Set One): they are lodged as Exhibit A to his motion, and they are statutorily compliant. Plaintiff has not objected to any of them. Defendant therefore has the information it needs. While trial is scheduled for December 16, 2022, the reality is that, with the Court’s impacted calendar and the ordinary delays of litigation, the trial was never likely to proceed on this date. The trial will likely be continued and Defendant will have sufficient time to prepare its case. The only prejudice to Defendant is the time and resources it needlessly expended.

Therefore, Defendant is not substantially prejudiced. Combined with the strong policy in favor of adjudicating cases on the merits, and Plaintiff’s showing that his failure to respond to discovery was caused by Mr. Ogbogu’s illness and grief, the record compels this Court to GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Permitting Plaintiff to Withdraw Facts Deemed Admitted.

It follows that Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is untenable: the motion follows an unsuccessful demurrer to the same First Amended Complaint and is based solely on the Court’s July 12, 2022 order deeming the requested matters admitted. Now that Plaintiff has withdrawn those deemed facts, there is no support for Defendant’s argument that the complaint does not state sufficient facts—there are no longer any facts in the record to reach this conclusion.

Therefore, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

Defendant’s Right to Costs

“The court may impose conditions on the granting of the motion that are just, including, but not limited to . . . [¶¶] 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, subd. (c).)

In its July 12, 2022 order, the Court awarded $860.00 in sanctions against Plaintiff, which Plaintiff has yet to pay. (Def. Decl. Crawley Supp. Opp’n Mot. Withdraw Facts ¶ 12.)

Additionally, Defendant has likely incurred expenses and attorney fees in opposing Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Permitting Plaintiff to Withdraw Facts Deemed Admitted, and in filing the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings based on a record that, by no fault of Defendant’s, is no longer applicable.

Thus, the Court finds it fair to award Defendant reasonable fees and costs in association with opposing and filing the two motions. As Defendant has not attested to what those reasonable fees and costs are, the Court will continue this matter as to that issue only.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Permitting Plaintiff to Withdraw Facts Deemed Admitted is GRANTED. Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

The hearing on the Motion for Order Permitting Plaintiff to Withdraw Facts Deemed Admitted is CONTINUED solely as to the issue of Defendant’s reasonable costs and fees in opposing Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Permitting Plaintiff to Withdraw Facts Deemed Admitted and filing its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Defendant is to file supplemental briefing on these amounts.