Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 24AHCV00102, Date: 2024-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24AHCV00102, Date: 2024-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Sandra Maldonado Rosales (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order deeming admitted the matters within Request or Admissions, Set One, which were served on defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”) on February 9, 2024.

Where a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The court shall grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Here, Defendant’s responses were due on March 15, 2024. Defendant served unverified responses on June 27, 2024, and provided a verification on July 24, 2024. Plaintiff argues that the motion is not moot and should be granted because the responses are not substantially compliant. The responses contain objections and Defendant waived those objections by failing to serve timely responses. However, Plaintiff cites to no case law providing that including objections, which have been waived, renders a response noncompliant. This is bolstered by the fact that a party who believes that a response contains unmeritorious objections may bring a motion for an order compelling a further response, as well as the fact that a party who serves untimely responses may file a motion for relief from their waiver of objections due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2033.280; 2033.290.)

The Court notes that, in its opposition brief, Defendant requests that it be relieved from its waiver of objections on the grounds that the failure to timely respond was due to a “substantial increase in emails” related to the “unlimited growth of volume in [Song-Beverly] matters.” (Opp., Brezovec Decl., ¶ 4.) This request is improper because relief from the waiver of objections due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect may only be provided “on motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) Furthermore, even if the Court construed such request as properly made, it would be denied. Neglect is excusable only if a reasonably prudent person in similar circumstances might have made the same error. (Huh v. Wang (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1423, as modified (Jan. 16, 2008) [citations omitted].) “Conduct falling below the professional standard of care, such as failure to timely object to or properly advance an argument, is not therefore excusable.” (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 682.) “To hold otherwise would be to eliminate the express statutory requirement of excusability and effectively eviscerate the concept of attorney malpractice.” (Ibid.) To constitute grounds for relief, an exceptional workload generally must be accompanied by some factor outside the attorney's control that makes the situation unmanageable, such as a mistake “caused by a glitch in office machinery or an error by clerical staff.” (Id. at p. 1424.) Therefore, the proffered declaration, without more, is insufficient for this Court to grant relief from its waiver of objections.

In conclusion, because verified responses have been served, the motion is MOOT. Mandatory sanctions are imposed against Defendant and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $375, payable within 20 days of the date of this Order, consisting of one hour at Plaintiff’s counsel’s customary hourly rate.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@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.