St. Mary v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal
2014 WL 346102, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 517, 223 Cal. App. 4th 762 (2014)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a party fails to respond to Requests for Admissions (RFAs) on time but serves a proposed response before the hearing on a motion to deem them admitted, the court must deny the motion if the response, viewed as a whole, is in substantial compliance with statutory requirements; any challenges to specific, allegedly deficient answers must be brought through a separate motion to compel further responses.

Facts:

In December 2005, Lisa St. Mary heard a radio advertisement for Cedar Funding, Inc. and was referred to Thomas Schellenberg, a 'Director, New Business'.
Schellenberg recommended St. Mary invest her life savings of $475,000 by making a loan to his separate, wholly owned venture, Neo Ventures, Inc., to renovate a residential property.
Schellenberg represented that St. Mary's investment would be secured by a deed of trust in first priority and that the property would be worth $1,375,000.
St. Mary provided the funds in January 2006, relying on Schellenberg's representations.
St. Mary never received the promised security for her investment.
St. Mary's entire investment was lost after Cedar Funding, Inc. went bankrupt and a lienholder bank foreclosed on the subject property.
St. Mary alleged that by March 2007, Schellenberg and others had fraudulently extracted $1,887,000 using the property as a basis for financial transactions.
In May 2008, St. Mary became aware of the alleged fraudulent operations.

Procedural Posture:

Lisa St. Mary sued Thomas Schellenberg and Katherine Mills in superior court, alleging fraud and other claims.
During discovery, Schellenberg and Mills served a combined 119 Requests for Admissions (RFAs) on St. Mary.
St. Mary's counsel requested a two-week extension to respond, which Schellenberg denied one day after the deadline.
St. Mary served her RFA responses four days late.
Four days after receiving the late responses, Schellenberg and Mills filed a motion in the superior court to have all 119 RFAs deemed admitted pursuant to § 2033.280(b).
The superior court granted the motion in part, deeming 41 of the 105 RFAs propounded by Schellenberg to be admitted, and awarded sanctions.
St. Mary filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District, seeking to vacate the superior court's order.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a trial court abuse its discretion by granting a motion to deem Requests for Admissions (RFAs) admitted under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280 when the responding party served a proposed response, prior to the hearing, that was substantially compliant with the code, even if some individual answers were allegedly deficient?

Opinions:

Majority - Márquez, J.

Yes. A trial court abuses its discretion by granting a motion to deem RFAs admitted where the responding party has served a proposed response before the hearing that is in substantial compliance with the code. The trial court's role under § 2033.280 is to determine if the response document as a whole is substantially compliant, not to engage in a piecemeal analysis of individual answers. Here, St. Mary served her verified responses before the motion was even filed. The majority of her answers were simple admissions or denials, and the response document as a whole represented a good faith effort to comply. The proper procedure for challenging specific, allegedly evasive or incomplete answers is a motion to compel further responses under § 2033.290, which provides procedural safeguards like a meet-and-confer requirement and notice to the responding party of the specific deficiencies. By deeming 41 RFAs admitted, the trial court improperly converted a 'deemed admitted' motion into a motion to compel further responses, bypassing the required statutory steps and creating a windfall for the propounding party.

Analysis:

This case clarifies the distinct functions of two critical discovery statutes governing Requests for Admissions: § 2033.280 (motions to deem admitted) and § 2033.290 (motions to compel further responses). The decision prevents the harsh, case-dispositive sanction of a 'deemed admission' from being used as a 'gotcha' tactic when a party submits a late but substantively complete set of responses. It establishes that courts must evaluate the entire response document for 'substantial compliance' rather than deeming individual RFAs admitted based on alleged deficiencies in specific answers. This reinforces the principle that the appropriate remedy for inadequate answers is a motion to compel, which gives the responding party notice and an opportunity to correct the answers before sanctions are imposed, thereby favoring the resolution of cases on their merits.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature