2011-00099843-CU-BC

Eugene P Haydu vs. Ron Hogan

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Relief from Admissions Being Deemed Admitted

Filed By: Martinez, Carlos

Defendants’ motion for relief from orders on 5/29/2012 and 2/11/2014 which deemed
requests for admissions admitted is GRANTED, as follows.

Moving counsel is admonished for failing to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(3).

Defendants now move for relief from the Court’s 5/29/2012 order deeming admitted
plaintiff’s requests for admissions on the grounds that they believed the subject
requests needed to be re-served after plaintiff obtain relief from the automatic stay and
that they never received plaintiff’s (first) motion to deem admitted. Defendants also
seek relief from the 2/11/2014 order on the grounds that they mailed responses to the
subject requests, they believed their responses had been received by plaintiff and that
they never received plaintiff’s (second) motion to deem admitted. Claiming that these
two prior court orders resulted from mistake, inadvertence and/or excusable neglect
and that plaintiff will not be substantially prejudiced in its prosecution of this case if
relief is granted, defendants seek to have the deemed admissions set aside pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure §2033.300.

In opposition, plaintiff argues that defendants had knowledge of not only both sets of
requests for admissions but also the two sets of motions to deem admitted in 2012 and
2014. The opposition also contends that Code of Civil Procedure §2033.300(a) does
not afford defendants’ relief from deemed admissions, as opposed to voluntary
admissions and that there was no requirement to re-serve the requests for admissions
after obtaining relief from the automatic stay. Finally, plaintiff insists he will be
“substantially prejudiced” from relief from the deemed admissions in that the pending
summary judgment motion is based on the prior admission orders and trial is set to
commence on 6/24/2014. For these reasons, the opposition maintains that relief is not
permitted based on the plain language of §2033.300(a).

Although plaintiff is correct that there was no requirement to re-serve the first set of
requests for admissions after obtaining relief from the automatic stay, the Court finds
plaintiff is incorrect in asserting that Code of Civil Procedure §2033.300 does not afford
defendants’ relief from deemed admissions. This statute specifically permits the
‘withdrawal or amendment’ of admissions but the Supreme Court of California has held
this provision also applies to “deemed” admissions. ( Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21
Cal.4th 973, 979.) Thus, defendants are entitled to relief here provided that they show
the orders deeming admitted resulted from mistake, inadvertence and/or excusable
neglect and that plaintiff will not be substantially prejudiced in its prosecution of this
case if relief is granted.

Contrary to plaintiff’s suggestion, defendants never argued they were unaware of or
did not receive the two sets of requests for admissions which were served by plaintiff
and subsequently deemed admitted. Instead, defendants merely insisted they did not
receive either of the motions to deem admitted. While this assertion raises various
questions, the Court will accept this representation by defendants’ counsel since he is
an officer of the court and is obligated to be candid and forthright in such matters.
Moreover, plaintiff cannot establish with any certainty that defendants did in fact
receive one or the other of the two prior motions. After all, both the order on 5/29/2012
and the order on 2/11/2014 indicated that plaintiff’s motion to deemed admitted was
unopposed and it would be reasonable to expect an attorney who received a motion to
deem admitted would either oppose the motion or otherwise provide (tardy) responses
to the underlying requests. In light of the foregoing, the Court holds that defendants
have effectively established the admissions at issue here resulted from mistake,
inadvertence and/or excusable neglect within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure
§2033.300.

The sole remaining question is whether plaintiff will be “substantially prejudiced” in
maintaining his action against defendants. (Code Civ. Proc. §2033.300(b).) Although
there is little question that plaintiff’s ability to prevail on his pending motion for
summary judgment and to proceed to trial later this month will be adversely affected if
defendants obtain the requested relief, this Court does not find that plaintiff will
“substantially prejudiced” in maintaining his action against defendants. Instead,
plaintiff will merely need to prove the prima facie elements of his claims against
defendants instead of relying solely on the deemed admissions.

Since defendants have satisfied the two prerequisites for relief under Code of Civil
Procedure §2033.300, their motion for relief from the orders on 5/29/2012 and
2/11/2014 which deemed requests for admissions admitted is hereby granted. If not
already done, defendants shall serve verified responses, without objections, to both
sets of plaintiff’s requests for admission no later than 6/20/2014.

Additionally, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2033.300(c), the Court finds it is
appropriate for plaintiff to have an opportunity now to conduct further discovery relating
to the matters that were previously deemed admitted. Thus, the current trial date of
6/24/2014 is hereby VACATED. The parties shall promptly meet-and-confer on a
new, mutually agreeable trial date and then to contact Department 47 in order to
secure the new trial date, subject to the Presiding Judge’s approval.