Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV00269, Date: 2024-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00269    Hearing Date: April 18, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Application for Relief from November 9, 2023 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted

Moving Party: Defendant Edgebanding Services, Inc.

Resp. Party:    Plaintiff Joseph Arevalo

The Motion is taken off-calendar because the moving party is in default.

BACKGROUND:

On January 5, 2023, Plaintiff Joseph Arevalo filed his Complaint against Defendants Edgebanding Services, Inc. and Martin Ramirez on causes of action arising from Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants.

On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint.

On November 9, 2023, the Court deemed admitted certain requests for admission (“RFAs”).

On March 20, 2024, Defendant Edgebanding Services, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed its Application for Relief from November 9, 2023 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted (“Motion for Relief from Admitted RFAs”). In support of its Motion for Relief from Admitted RFAs, Defendant concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Jennifer Hsiao; and (2) Proposed Order.

On April 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Opposition. In support of his Opposition, Plaintiff concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Amanda Thompson; (2) Declaration of Jonathan LaCour; (3) Declaration of Lisa Noveck; and (4) Proof of Service.

On April 5, 2024, by request of Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office entered default on both Defendants.

On April 11, 2024, Defendant filed its Reply. In support of its Reply, Defendant concurrently filed Declaration of Jennifer Hsiao.

ANALYSIS:

I.          Legal Standard

“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).)

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300, subd. (b).)

“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, subd. (c).)

II.       Discussion

A.      The Parties’ Arguments

Defendant requests that the Court relieve it from the order deeming admitted the truth of the matters specified in the RFAs. (Motion for Relief from Admitted RFAs, pp. 8:1–9:3.)

Defendant argues: (1) that Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) gives the Court discretion here; and (2) that the circumstances warrant a grant of discretionary relief. Notably, Defendant does not cite or discuss Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300.

Plaintiff disagrees, arguing: (1) that relief is not available under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) because the neglect is continuous and inexcusable; and (2) that there was an unreasonable delay of five months in filing this motion. (Opposition, pp. 9:4–5, 10:8–9.)

In its Reply, Defendant argues: (1) that Defendant did not oppose the Motion to Deem Admitted RFAs in reliance on representations by Plaintiff’s Counsel; (2) that Defense Counsel did not appear at the November 9, 2023 hearing as a result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and/or excusable neglect; (3) that any delay in filing the instant motion was in reliance on representations by Plaintiff’s Counsel; and (4) that there has not been any prejudice to Plaintiff because Plaintiff’s Counsel has not done anything to prepare their case while ignoring communications from Defense Counsel and preventing Defendants from adequately preparing their defenses for trial, thus resulting in extreme prejudice to Defendants. (Reply, pp. 3:4–5, 5:9–11, 6:3–4, 7:4–9.)

B.      Discussion

Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Admitted RFAs is not well-taken.

        The following is the relevant timeline of events:

(1)       on July 25, 2023, Plaintiff propounded the RFAs on Defendant;

(2)       on October 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed its “RFAs Motion” (Minute Order dated November 9, 2023, p. 2);

(3)       on November 9, 2023, the Court deemed admitted the RFAs due to Defendant’s failure to respond to them; and

(4)       on March 20, 2024, Defendant filed its Motion for Relief from Admitted RFAs.

Even if the Court were to consider the new evidence that indicates responses to the RFAs were served on November 8, 2023, the Court is left with many questions.   Among them are:

1.     Why was Defense Counsel months late in filing responses?

        2.     Why didn’t Defense counsel notify the Court hear regarding its alleged inability to attend the hearing?

        3.     Why did Defense Counsel wait four months to file a motion for relief?

        The Court finds that Defendant has not met its burden of to show that it is entitled to relief from the Admission of the Requests for Admission.  Thus, the Court would deny this motion on substantive grounds.

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300, subd. (b).)

The standard under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) is nearly the same.

        The Court has not been presented with any credible evidence that indicates the admissions were the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Rather, the evidence before the Court indicates that Defense Counsel has not taken this case seriously; rather defense counsel appears to have inexcusably neglected this case.  Thus, the Court would decline to permit withdrawal or amendment of the admissions.

However, given the procedural posture of the case, the Court could not grant the motion even if it wanted to.  On April 5, 2024, Clerk’s Office entered default against both Defendants.

Entry of defendant's default instantaneously cuts off its right to appear in the action. The defendant is “out of court.” It has no right to participate in the proceedings until either (a) its default is set aside (in which event, it may respond to the complaint), or (b) a default judgment is entered. (Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 CA3d 381, 385-386.)  To put it simply, entry of default deprives the court of jurisdiction to consider any motion other than a motion for relief from default. (W.A. Rose Co. v. Mun.Ct. (FitzSimmons) (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 69, 72.)

Default was entered because Defense Counsel never filed an answer to the Complaint or the FAC. Notably, Defense Counsel has not even moved for the Court to vacate and/or set aside the default, despite more than ten days having passed since default was entered.

This recent entry of default against both defendants is more evidence to support the Court’s conclusion that defense counsel has inexcusably neglected this case.

III.     Conclusion

The motion is taken off-calendar because the moving party is in default.