Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV06790, Date: 2023-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06790    Hearing Date: February 13, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

MARIA DEL CONSUELO BUSTOS RODRIGUEZ, 

Plaintiff(s), 

vs. 

 

MALACHI RASHID MAPPS, ET AL., 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 22STCV06790 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TOSET ASIDE DISCOVERY ORDERS AND WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m. 

February 13, 2024 

 

 

I. Background 

On August 14, 2023, the Court granted plaintiff Maria Del Consuelo Bustos Rodriguez’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to deem its requests for admission (“RFAs”), set one, admitted against defendant Malachi Rashid Mapps (“Mapps”).  

On November 13, 2023, counsel for Defendant Mapps filed the instant motion to be relieved from deemed admissions pursuant to §2033.300. 

Any opposition was due on or before January 31 2024; none was filed.  

 

II. Discussion 

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.)¿  

Counsel for Mapps seeks to withdraw Mapps’ deemed admissions on the grounds that counsel has diligently attempted to obtain verified responses from Mapps, whom counsel has been unable to reach. The discovery act explicitly provides relief from deemed admissions in CCP § 2033.300. However, Mapps counsel fails to show that they failed to serve timely discovery responses through mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. 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.) To date, responses have yet to be served, because Mapps continues to be uncommunicative and unreachable despite strenuous efforts to contact him. Mapps’ apparent refusal to participate in this litigation, thus thwarting completion of discovery propounded upon him, is neither a mistake, inadvertence, nor excusable neglect under CCP § 2033.300. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court¿(2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420–21 [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.] 

 

Based on the foregoing, the motion to be relieved from deemed admissions is DENIED.  

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice. 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 9th day of February 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court