St. Mary v. Superior Court
223 Cal. App. 4th 762
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- St. Mary sued Schellenberg, Mills, Nilsen for fraud and related claims over a $475,000 Cedar Funding investment.
- Schellenberg and Mills served 119 RFAs (Schellenberg) and 14 RFAs (Mills); St. Mary’s responses were four days late.
- Real parties moved to deem the RFAs admitted under CCP §2033.280; motion asserted responses were defective.
- The court granted the motion as to 41 Schellenberg RFAs and awarded sanctions; Mills’ RFAs were not addressed in the order.
- St. Mary petitioned for a writ of mandate to vacate the order, arguing the motion was improperly framed and relied on new arguments in reply.
- This proceeding challenges whether the court abused its discretion in deeming RFAs admitted and awarding sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the deemed admitted order was proper under CCP §2033.280(c) | St. Mary contends responses were substantially compliant | Real parties argue noncompliance; motion proper | No; court abused discretion by treating as noncompliant portions in toto |
| Whether St. Mary’s responses substantially complied with §2033.220 | Proposed response was verified and largely compliant | 41 responses were allegedly noncompliant | Yes; proposed response was substantially compliant, denying admission of 41 RFAs was not proper basis for deemed admissions |
| Whether the court converted a §2033.280 deemed-admission motion into a §2033.290 compel-further-responses motion | Motion was not framed as a §2033.290 motion | Court treated as compel-further-responses in part | Yes; improper transmutation constituting abuse of discretion |
| Whether sanctions tied to the deemed-admission ruling were proper | Sanctions premised on late but substantially compliant responses | Sanctions warranted for noncompliance | No; sanctions improper given the ruling’s infirm basis and St. Mary’s earlier compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilcox v. Birtwhistle, 21 Cal.4th 973 (Cal. 1999) (deemed admissions; post-CDA procedures; caution against draconian sanctions)
- Costa v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th 986 (Cal. 2006) (substantial compliance depends on statute’s meaning and purpose)
- Tobin v. Oris, 3 Cal.App.4th 814 (Cal. App. 1992) (interpretation of substantial compliance; pre-hearing responses)
- Demyer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates, 36 Cal.App.4th 393 (Cal. App. 1995) (warnings and procedures under deemed-admission rules; two-strikes rule)
- OXY Resources California LLC v. Superior Court, 115 Cal.App.4th 874 (Cal. App. 2004) (limits and review of discovery rulings; writ considerations)
- New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court, 168 Cal.App.4th 1403 (Cal. App. 2008) (considerations for relief from admissions; policy favoring merits)