Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 24NNCV01624, Date: 2024-12-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV01624    Hearing Date: December 17, 2024    Dept: V

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiff SEBA ISAAC

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM – SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA dba PROVIDENCE SAINT JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER (erroneously sued as Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center, Burbank)

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

This is an action for medical malpractice. Plaintiff Seba Isaac filed the complaint against defendants Dr. Richard Friedman (Dr. Friedman) and Providence Health System – Southern California dba Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center, erroneously sued as Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center, Burbank (Providence) on May 15, 2024. Plaintiff in its form complaint checked off general negligence and medical malpractice.

On September 5, 2024, the court deemed the matters within defendant Providence’s Requests for Admission, Set One as true against plaintiff Seba Isaac.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on October 31, 2024. Defendant Providence filed the opposition on December 4, 2024. The reply was filed on December 6, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).) Application for this relief shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).) “[T]he court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves to set aside the motion granting defendant Providence’s motion to deem requests for admission admitted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) on the grounds of inadvertence, surprise, mistake, or excusable neglect.

The court finds that a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) is not the proper motion to obtain the relief requested. Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300 provides for the remedy. “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. 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.) Because the standard set out in Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300 is relatively similar to section 473(b), the court will consider the merits of the motion under the correct statute.

Plaintiff indicates that she failed to locate the request for admissions with the documents served by mail and that had trouble understanding the document when she reviewed it as an Exhibit from the Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted. Plaintiff further indicates that on the day of the hearing for the motion to deem RFAs admitted, she initially checked in online, but when it was time for the hearing, she unmuted herself but the court could not hear her.

Plaintiff filed a “correspondence” in which she attempts to add exhibits to the motion to set aside the RFA admissions. Even if the court were to consider the additional evidence, the medical records that plaintiff attaches are not relevant to the instant motion.

Plaintiff argues that she failed to respond to the RFAs due to inadvertence, surprise, and excusable neglect. However, as defendant Providence argues, plaintiff was served the discovery in two different ways, by mail and email, and had access to the RFAs through defendant Providence’s motion papers. Plaintiff thus had three opportunities to review and provide responses to the RFAs but never served responses.

Plaintiff also argues that the RFAs were difficult to comprehend. That does not show inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Furthermore, plaintiff fails to address whether withdrawing the admissions would not prejudice defendant Providence.

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to w