SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

On August 23, 2023, the Court granted Back To Our Roots, Inc. d/b/a Beelman’s (“Defendant”) unopposed motions to compel Plaintiff Tiara Jackson (“Plaintiff”) to serve verified responses to its set one of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production. (Min. Order, Aug. 23, 2023.) In addition, the Court granted Defendant’s unopposed motion to deem its requests for admission (“RFAs”), set one, admitted against Plaintiff. (Ibid.) The Court further awarded Defendant monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,040. (Ibid.) 

On October 26, 2023 Plaintiff filed the instant motion to be relieved from deemed admissions pursuant to CCP §473 and §2033.300. 

Any opposition was due on or before January 19, 2024; none was filed.  

 

II. Discussion 

CCP § 473(b) provides that “the court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”  

CCP § 473(d) provides that “a court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.”  

CCP § 2033.300(a) states, “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.” CCP §2033.300(b) states, “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.” The “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect” under CCP § 2033.300 have similar meanings as those words used in CCP § 473(b). (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1419.)¿  

“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 not 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.) 

Plaintiff seeks to withdraw his deemed admissions on the grounds that her counsel failed to provide timely responses due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Plaintiff’s counsel (“Counsel”) declares that Plaintiff had illness and death of a close family pet, which increased the difficulty of compiling a timely response. However, although untimely, Counsel served responses to Defendant’s form interrogatories, special interrogatories, request for production, and RFAs on June 23, 2023. (Mot. ¶¶ 8-12; Exhs. A-D.) Counsel declares he inadvertently failed to oppose Defendant’s motions because of a misunderstanding that the motions would be withdrawn, since Counsel had served responses months before the hearing date. Counsel further declares that his office has paid the $1,040 monetary sanctions ordered by this Court. (Id. at ¶ 14; Exh. F.) 

Here, the discovery act explicitly provides relief from deemed admissions in CCP § 2033.300. Excusable neglect is generally defined as an error a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances might have made. (Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 258.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence that the failure to oppose Defendant’s motions to deem RFAs admitted was the result of her attorney’s excusable neglect.  The Court also finds that Defendant will not be substantially prejudiced if Plaintiff is relieved from the deemed admissions, because Plaintiff has demonstrated that the responses were served two months prior to the August 23, 2023 Order. 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to be relieved from deemed admissions is GRANTED. The portion of the Court’s August 23, 2023 Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted, is hereby VACATED. However, Plaintiff’s request to set aside sanctions is denied; Plaintiff served untimely responses to warrant sanctions, and the monetary sanctions were already paid, thereby rendering this request moot.