Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV21071, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21071    Hearing Date: December 16, 2024    Dept: 29

Harrison v. City of Los Angeles
22STCV21071
Motion to Withdraw and Amend Admissions

Tentative

The motion is granted

Background

On June 28, 2022, Richard Harrison (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles World Airports (collectively “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 50, asserting a cause of action for premises liability arising out of trip and fall occurring on August 13, 2021.

On May 1, 2023, Defendants filed an answer.

On December 23, 2022, Defendants served Plaintiff with Requests for Admission (Set One).  (Fantasia Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. B.)  Plaintiff served his responses on February 9, 2023.  (Id., ¶ 5 & Exh. C.)  In his responses, Plaintiff admitted, among other things, that Defendants had no actual or constructive notice of the danger that Plaintiff contends caused his injuries.  (Id., ¶ 7.)

On November 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to withdraw his admissions. Defendants filed an opposition on December 4, along with a request for sanctions.  Plaintiff filed a reply on December 10.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300 governs requests to withdraw or amend responses to requests for admission. Section 2033.300 provides:

“(a) 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.

(b) 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.

(c) 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the party who obtained the admission be permitted to pursue additional discovery related to the matter involved in the withdrawn or amended admission.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.”

The Court of Appeal discussed section 2033.300 at length in New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403. The Court of Appeal stated that the statute “eliminates undeserved windfalls obtain through requests for admission and furthers the policy favoring the resolution of lawsuits on the merits.” (Id. at p. 1418.)   

Although the court has discretion in ruling on a motion brought under section 2033.300, that discretion “is not unlimited” and “must be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law and in a manner that serves the interests of justice.” (Id., at p. 1420.)

“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 substantially prejudice the party who obtained the admission in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits.”

(Id. at pp. 1420-1421.) 

Discussion

Plaintiff served responses to Defendants’ Requests for Admission on February 9, 2023.  In responses to Requests Nos. 8 through 13, Plaintiff essentially admitted that Defendants had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition that (Plaintiff contends) caused the accident.  (Fantasia Decl., Exh. C, at pp. 5-6.)

Plaintiff’s counsel states that John Rofael, who was handling the case for Plaintiff at the time of the responses, contends that the previous handling attorney, John Rofael, left the law firm after experiencing “significant personal issues which caused him to mismanage many of the cases that were assigned to him.”  (Fantasia Decl., ¶ 6.)  Counsel further states:

“Certainly, no reasonable or right-minded attorney … would have made such admissions in a case where the cause of action pled against Defendant requires actual or constructive notice as an element of the claim.  These admissions were made due to mistake, inadvertence and excusable neglect of Plaintiff’s prior handling attorney because of the personal issues that he was dealing with at the time.”

(Id., ¶ 8.) 

Plaintiff also attaches amended responses to the Requests for Admission.  (Id., Exh. D.)  In the amended responses, which are verified, Plaintiff denies Requests Nos. 8 through 13.

The Court has reviewed the arguments and evidence from both sides and finds that Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of that the initial responses were the result of a mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  In addition, Defendants will not be substantially prejudiced by having to defend the action on the merits; Defendants, to be sure, would have a stronger defense if Plaintiff were bound by the initial responses, but Defendants are not substantially prejudiced by the loss of what is essentially, on this record, a windfall resulting from mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

Accordingly, the motion is granted.

The Court has the power to grant the motion with conditions.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300, subd. (c).)  Here, however, Defendants do not seek any such conditions, at least at this time.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Richard Harrison’s motion to withdraw the responses to Requests for Admission (Set One) Nos. 8 through 12, served on February 9, 2023.  Plaintiff is granted leave to amend the responses (see Exhibit D attached to the motion).

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.