Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV03739, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV03739    Hearing Date: August 4, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Kennon Yi move to amend his admissions provided in response to Requests for Admissions, set one, (“RFA”), which defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC (collectively, “Uber”) propounded on Plaintiff.  Uber opposes the motion. 

EVIDENCE

            With respect to Uber’s objections to Plaintiff’s evidence in support of the motion, the Court rules as follows:

Objections to the Declaration of Richard D. Hoffman

1. Sustained as to “when Defendant Jonathan Cardona, while driving a fare for the ‘Uber’ Defendants, negligently struck Plaintiff’s vehicle head-on, resulting in personal injuries.”

2. Overruled.

3. Overruled.

4. Overruled.

Objections to the Declaration of Kennon Yi

1. Overruled.

2. Overruled.

3. Overruled.

4. Overruled.

5. Overruled.

ANALYSIS

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300, a party may withdraw or amend an admission made in response to a request for admission on a noticed motion, if the court 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300, subds. (a)-(b).) “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.) The court may impose any just conditions on the granting of the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300, subd. (c).)

            Here, Plaintiff seeks to amend his responses to requests Nos. 10-12 of the RFA to maintain objections and deny rather than admit the matters specified in those requests.  In his response to requests Nos. 10-12 of the RFA, Plaintiff admitted that Uber did not employ any person involved in the subject collision.  (See Declaration of Richard D. Hoffman, Exhibit 4.) 

Plaintiff advances the declaration of counsel for Plaintiff, Richard D. Hoffman (“Hoffman”).  Hoffman states that Plaintiff served his responses to the RFA on November 22, 2021.  (Declaration of Richard D. Hoffman, ¶ 4. Exhibit 4.)  Hoffman avers Plaintiff’s responses to requests Nos. 10-12 of the RFA were based on mistake and excusable neglect of Plaintiff and his counsel.  (Declaration of Richard D. Hoffman, ¶ 6.) 

            Plaintiff also advances his own declaration. Plaintiff states that his attorney prepared his responses to the RFA, which Plaintiff verified.  (Declaration of Kennon Yi, ¶ 3.)  Plaintiff states that he mistakenly admitted to requests Nos. 10-12 of the RFA.  (Declaration of Kennon Yi, ¶ 4.)  Plaintiff avers that he has never driven for nor been employed by Uber nor any other transportation network company.  (Declaration of Kennon Yi, ¶ 5.)  Plaintiff avers that he has no knowledge regarding the employment relationship between Uber and its driver-operators.  (Declaration of Kennon Yi, ¶ 6.)  Plaintiff therefore concludes that it was a mistake for him to have admitted that the driver of the other vehicle in the collision, defendant Jonathan Cardona (“Cardona”), was not an employee of Uber because he had no basis for making such an admission. (Declaration of Kennon Yi, ¶ 7.) 

            In opposition, Uber asserts Plaintiff has not established his admissions with respect to requests Nos. 10-12 of the RFA were due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  Uber argues that Plaintiff must include additional facts such as the circumstances of his mistake and has basis for claiming to deny that Cardona was an employee of Uber at the time of the collision.  Uber also asserts that Plaintiff has failed to show that Uber will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense on the merits if the motion is granted. 

            The Court is not persuaded.  In particular, the Court notes that allowing Plaintiff to amend the responses at issue would instead permit the case to be litigated on the merits – that is, the legal question of whether Cardona was an employee of Uber at the time of the collision – rather than upon Plaintiff’s unfounded admissions on the issue.

The Court finds Plaintiff has demonstrated his admission to the matters specified in requests Nos. 10-12 of the RFA were the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect on the part of Plaintiff and his counsel, and that Uber will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining their action on the merits by granting Plaintiff leave to amend.  Consequently, the Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to amend his responses to the RFA per Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300, and orders Plaintiff to serve his amended, verified  responses to the RFA within 10 days of the hearing. 

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.