Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV34509, Date: 2022-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV34509    Hearing Date: September 16, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

This is a premises liability action arising out of Plaintiff Vicente Monterroza’s (“Plaintiff”) trip and fall on October 10, 2018, at premises located at 3211 Firestone Boulevard, South Gate, California, 90280 (“Premises”) owned by Defendant Bodega Latina Corporation dba El Super (“Defendant”). 

On July 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion for leave to withdraw an admission made in response to Defendant’s Request for Admission (“RFA”) No. 5, which asked Plaintiff to admit that he “does not have any admissible evidence that the alleged condition of the FLOOR was a SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR in CAUSING the INCIDENT as seen in the operative Complaint.” 

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

 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 substantially prejudice the party who obtained the admission in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits.” (Id. at pp. 1420–1421.)  Inexcusable delay in making the motion for relief alone, without a showing of substantial prejudice, cannot justify the denial of a motion under section 2033.300.  (Id. at p. 1421.)

III.        DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues the admission to RFA No. 5 was an inadvertent mistake.  Plaintiff’s attorney submits a declaration that states that she never intended to pose an admission to that request and that the admission was a mistake.  (Motion, Garabedian Decl., ¶ 10.)  Plaintiff also points to the rest of his discovery responses which consistently set forth his contention that Defendant is liable.  In particular, the Court notes that the remainder of Defendant’s RFAs concerned the ultimate facts of the case, including RFA No. 4, which Plaintiff denied, even though it contains substantially similar language by asking Plaintiff to admit he does “not have any admissible evidence that the alleged condition of the FLOOR was a SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR in CAUSING [his] alleged harm as seen in the operative Complaint.”  (Motion, 7:12-15.)  The only difference between RFA Nos. 4 and 5 is that RFA No. 4 refers to “[Plaintiff’s] alleged harm” and the other asks about “the INCIDENT”.  The fact that Plaintiff denied RFA No. 4 is evidence that the admission to RFA No. 5 was inadvertent. 

Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories and his deposition testimony also show that the admission was an inadvertent mistake because they all maintain that he slipped on a wet floor. 

In its opposition brief, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s admission was not inadvertent because it was true and claims Plaintiff, in fact, does not have any admissible evidence supporting the element of causation.  The Court is unpersuaded of this, in light of Plaintiff’s other discovery responses and deposition testimony, which clearly shows that Plaintiff did not intend to admit that he conceded the ultimate fact of whether Defendant caused his injuries. 

Defendant also argues that it will be prejudiced by the withdrawal because Defendant relied on the admission in its motion for summary judgment.  However, Plaintiff informed Defendant and the Court of his intention to file a motion to withdraw the deemed admission on January 3, 2022.  Furthermore, delay itself is not a basis for denying a motion to withdraw an admission.  The Court also rejects Defendant’s request to depose Plaintiff a second time or an order that Plaintiff must serve verified amended responses to RFA No. 5 and Form Interrogatory No. 17.1.  Defendant’s RFA No. 4 was, for all intents and purposes, identical to RFA No. 5.  Defendant does not show that there is a need to conduct further discovery because Defendant has been aware of Plaintiff’s contentions regarding causation since the hearing on January 3, 2022, and Plaintiff was deposed well after on May 4, 2022. 

IV.         CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.  

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.