2012-00122836-CU-PO

Sandy Jaco vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding:    Motion to Set Aside the Feb. 11, 2014 Order Deeming Matters Admitted

Filed By:  Greene, Ted A.

Plaintiff Sandy Jaco’s motion to set aside the February 11, 2014, order deeming
matters admitted is granted.

In this personal injury action, Plaintiff seeks to set aside the Court’s February 11, 2014,
order granting Defendant Wal-Mart;s unopposed motion for order deeming matters in
its requests for admissions admitted.

Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to CCP §473(b) on the basis that the requests for
admission were served at a time when she had executed a substitution of attorney
form allowing her previous attorney to withdraw to deal with family issues.  Plaintiff
declares that shortly thereafter, her elderly mother began to experience severe health
problems.  (Plf’s Decl. )  Plaintiff moved in with her mother to care for her.  (Id )
Plaintiff also suffered her own health problems during this time.  (Id.)  The requests for
admissions were served on Plaintiff at her previous address and Plaintiff did not
receive the requests having failed to file a change of address with the Court.  Nor did
she receive the motion to deem the matters in the requests for admissions admitted
and thus failed to respond to the requests and the motion.  Defendant has since
moved for summary judgment based on the matters deemed admitted.

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown that the February 11, 2014, order was
taken against her as the result of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect…”  (CCP § 473(b).)  Indeed, “[u]nless inexcusable neglect is clear, the policy
favoring trial on the merits prevails.  Doubts are resolved in favor of the application for
relief from default, and reversal of an order denying relief results. There is no general               rule that can be laid down for matters left to the trial court’s discretion, such as whether
a given instance of conduct constitutes “mistake, advertence or excusable neglect.”
Reversal is particularly appropriate where relieving the default will not seriously
prejudice the opposing party.”  (Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 235
[reversing an order denying a motion to set aside an order deeming matters admitted].)
Plaintiff’s declaration establishes that she did not receive the requests for admissions
or the motion to deem matters admitted because she had moved in with her elderly
mother who was experiencing serious health issues and had neglected to file a change
of address.  (Plf’s Decl.)  Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s conduct was inexcusable
because she failed to provide specific details regarding her mother’s illness and the
amount of care involved, or that such care was provided to the exclusion of all other
affairs (e.g., neglecting to file a change of address with either the Court or the post-
office), and cites case law upholding a trial court’s denial of a motion to set aside
default where the moving party declared that she was caring for her elderly mother but
did not state that all her time was devoted to such care.  (Davis v. Thayer (1980) 113
Cal.App.3d 892, 909.)  Here, by contrast, such an inference is permissible from
Plaintiff’s declaration that she was required to move in with her mother to care for her.
Given the policy favoring trial on the merits and the fact that the admissions in this
case (e.g. admit that Defendant was not negligent) effectively end the case in
Defendant’s favor, the Court resolves any doubt in favor of granting relief.  Further
while Defendant argues that Plaintiff must have had notice of the motion because she
appeared at the hearing, the Court finds that such argument does not weigh in favor of
denying relief.  Indeed, the Court’s tentative ruling indicated that Defendant provided
the incorrect time for the hearing and directed Defendant’s counsel to immediately
provide notice to Plaintiff of the correct time for the hearing.  That Plaintiff ultimately
appeared at the hearing is not inconsistent with her declaration that she never
received notice of the motion in the first instance.  Further, Defendant’s opposition
concedes that the requests for admission sent to Plaintiff that were the subject of the
motion were actually returned to counsel’s office with a label “return to sender,
attempted–not known, unable to forward.”

Generally, the Court’s discretion to deny the motion is limited to circumstances where
is clear that the mistake was “inexcusable” or where it is clear that the propounding
party would be substantially prejudiced if the motion were granted.
th
(New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4   1403, 1419.)  Here, it is
not clear that the mistake was “inexcusable” despite the lack of detail in the declaration

As a result, the motion is granted and the February 11, 2014, Order deeming the
matters in Defendant’s request for admissions admitted is set aside.  The Court notes,
however, that Plaintiff has not sought relief from any waiver of objections to the
requests for admissions based on her failure to timely respond to the admissions.
Thus, while Plaintiff is given relief from the admissions by way of this order, she has
not been given relief from the waiver of objections.  No later than June 30 2014,
Plaintiff shall serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s request for
admissions.

Given the above, the Court need not rule on Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections.

The minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or other notice is required.