Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV37385, Date: 2023-10-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV37385 Hearing Date: November 28, 2023 Dept: 29
Tentative Ruling
The Court GRANTS the motion.
Background
On September 30, 2020, Plaintiff Jesus
Villarreal (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against Defendants Raul Mariscal;
Growth Spike Holdings, LCC; and Does 1 through 100 asserting causes of action
for (1) negligence/vicarious liability, (2) negligence per se, (3) negligent
hiring, retention, and supervision, and (4) negligent training.
On December 4, 2020, Defendant Growth Spike
Holdings, LLC (“Defendant”) filed its answer.
On June 8, 2021, Defendant Raul Mariscal filed his answer.
On December 21, 2021, Plaintiff amended his
complaint to name BKJK, LLC as Doe 11.
On February 1, 2023, Plaintiff amended his complaint to name TC Machine
Builds LLC as Doe 21. On June 7, 2023,
Plaintiff amended his complaint to name Good Tree Holdings, LLC as Doe 41.
As is relevant here, on June 13, 2022,
Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Admission (Set One) (the
“RFAs”). Defendant provided unverified
responses to the RFAs but did not serve verified responses; as a result, Plaintiff
moved for an order to have the matters specified in the RFAs deemed
admitted. The Court granted that motion
on November 21, 2022.
On September 13, 2023, Defendant filed this
motion for leave to withdraw or amend deemed admissions. Plaintiff filed an opposition, along with
evidentiary objections, on September 25, and Defendant filed a reply on
September 29.
On October 6, 2023, the Court, on its own
motion, continued the hearing to October 20.
At the conclusion of the hearing, after hearing argument from counsel,
the Court took the matter under submission.
On October 23, the Court issued a ruling continuing the hearing and granted
the parties leave to file supplemental evidence and argument.
On November 1, 2023, Defendant filed a supplemental
brief and a declaration from former counsel.
On November 13, Plaintiff filed a supplemental opposition and objections
to the declaration from Defendant’s former counsel. On November 17, Defendant filed a
supplemental reply and a supplemental reply declaration from former
counsel. On November 20, Plaintiff filed
objections to the supplemental reply declaration.
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).)
Because the law strongly favors trial and disposition on the merits, any
doubts in ruling on a motion to withdraw or amend an admission must be resolved
in favor of the party seeking relief. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Super. Ct.
(2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420.) A party propounding requests for admission
is not entitled to “undeserved windfalls.”
(Id. at p. 1418.) Denial
of a motion to withdraw or amend an admission “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.” (Id.
at pp. 1420-21.)
Objections
Plaintiff’s Objections to Declaration of Michael
Freedman Signed 9/13/23
The objection to Paragraph 6, lines 19-21 (beginning
with “he told me” and continuing through the end of the sentence) is SUSTAINED
as hearsay. The other objections are
OVERRULED.
Plaintiff’s Objections to Declaration of James
Bryant Signed 11/1/23
The objection to paragraph 18, lines 16-18 is
SUSTAINED as a legal argument, not a statement of facts. The other objections are OVERRULED, in part because
the matter before the Court involves an issue of (among other things) excusable
neglect, and therefore counsel’s state of mind – even if based on hearsay that
is not admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted – is relevant.
Plaintiff’s Objections to Declaration of James
Bryant Signed 11/17/23
The objections are OVERRULED, in part because the matter
before the Court involves an issue of (among other things) excusable neglect,
and therefore counsel’s state of mind – even if based on hearsay that is not
admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted – is relevant.
Discussion
On June 13,
2022, Plaintiff propounded the RFAs on Defendant. (Freedman Decl., Exh. A.) On September 12, 2022, Defendant served
unverified responses to the RFAs but never provided verifications. (See id., Exh. B.) On October 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion
to deem admitted the truth of the matters specified in the RFAs. The Court granted that motion on November 21,
2022.
Now,
Defendant moves to withdraw the deemed admissions and to verify the Requests
for Admissions. The basis for the motion
is the excusable neglect of Defendant’s prior counsel, Mr. Bryant. In a declaration signed on November 1, 2023, Mr.
Bryant states that he understood that the verification of the RFA responses had
been served but apparently they were not because of recurring problems that his
law firm was experiencing with service (and sending and receiving emails
generally) during the period of August through December 2022 caused by a
massive crash to the firm’s data and email servers. (Bryant Decl., ¶¶ 2-17.)
The Court has
considered the admissible evidence and argument submitted by both sides and
finds that Defendant has met its burden of showing that the failure to serve
the verifications of the RFA responses was the result of excusable neglect.
Turning to the issue of prejudice, the Court concludes that Plaintiff
would not be unfairly or substantially prejudiced from the granting of the
requested relief. Plaintiff received
unverified responses from Defendant, which of course are not legally valid, but
as a practical matter these responses put Plaintiff on notice regarding
Defendant’s contentions. To the extent
that Plaintiff deferred certain discovery, there appears to be ample
opportunity to complete that deferred discovery now, given that trial is not until
March 27, 2024. Losing the benefit of
what would otherwise appear to be an “undeserved windfall” – including an
admission of liability by Defendant – is not in itself substantial prejudice
within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300, subdivision
(b). Nor does Plaintiff establish unfair
prejudice by asserting in its supplemental briefing (without factual support)
that Plaintiff “was forced to emotionally deal with [Defendant’s]
obstruction. (Supp. Opp. at 11-12.)
Finally, if necessary to avoid any alleged unfair prejudice, Plaintiff
may seek to continue trial and/or other relief under subdivision (c) of section
2033.300.
Conclusion
The Motion is GRANTED. Defendant
is ORDERED to serve verified responses to the RFAs within 14 days of this
order.
Moving party
to give notice