HIMLEY vs SAMAAN

23CV009868: HIMLEY vs SAMAAN 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Withdraw and Amend Admissions in Department 16D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-3056 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

23CV009868: HIMLEY vs SAMAAN 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Withdraw and Amend Admissions in Department 16D

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

****NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE.*****

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Dirk Himley’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for leave to withdraw and amend admissions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300 is ruled upon as follows.

Defendant Nabil Samaan’s (“Defendant”) request for judicial notice is granted for the limited purposes permitted for judicial notice. (See, Evid. Code, § 451, subd. (a); § 452, subds. (b)-(d); see also, Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [court may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents but not the truth of the statements contained therein]; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-148; Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1569-70.)

Background

This is an action for breach of contract. Plaintiff alleges Defendant agreed to sell Plaintiff real property located at 4021 New York Avenue in Fair Oaks, California, for $380,000; that Plaintiff delivered $60,100 to Defendant; and then Defendant cancelled the agreement and raised the purchase price to $425,000. Plaintiff alleges he is owed his $60,100 plus 5% interest.

The case was initially set for trial on October 21, 2025. Trial was continued to January

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV009868: HIMLEY vs SAMAAN 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Withdraw and Amend Admissions in Department 16D

20, 2026, to allow Plaintiff to retain counsel which he did on January 2, 2026. On January 20, 2026, Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial was granted and trial was continued to November 2, 2026. On April 16, 2026, this Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to reopen discovery, reciting Plaintiff’s indication that he did not previously propound any discovery prior to retaining counsel as he was not familiar with litigation, in contrast to Defendant’s propounding of almost 300 discovery requests on Plaintiff. (See April 16, 2026 Minute Order.)

Again, Defendant did not contest Plaintiff’s motion and reasons stated therein, nor did Defendant contest the Court’s tentative ruling. Thus, discovery has been reopened (as to both parties) as of April 16, 2026. Plaintiff filed its present motion on May 28, 2026, the hearing for which was advanced to this date by the Court’s order on May 29, 2026.

The Court notes that Defendant had appealed the Presiding Judge’s order continuing the trial to November. The Third District Court of Appeal’s docket indicated that it was considering dismissing the appeal on the basis that it was a non-appealable order, which it formally did and issued its remittitur on June 24, 2026.

On December 26, 2023, Defendant propounded Requests for Admissions, Set One on Plaintiff. (Declaration of Dirk Himley (“Himley Decl.”), ¶ 17, Ex. 9.) On February 9, 2024, Plaintiff served his responses to the Requests for Admissions. (Id., ¶18, Ex. 10.) According to his moving papers, Plaintiff now moves to “have relief from the erroneous answers he provided to RFAs Nos. 30, 40, and 46.” (MPA at 8:20-21.) As indicated in his notice of motion, Plaintiff also seeks to amend his “corresponding Form Interrogatory 17.1 responses.” (Notice at 1:27.)

Plaintiff’s prior responses to request nos. 30, 40, and 46, state as follows:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30: Admit that there is NO written contract for the $60,000.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40: Admit that there is no written document that evidences you are entitled to $60,000.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46: Admit that while in contract to purchase the DEFENDANT'S PROPERTY, YOU listed another property as the upleg property on YOUR 1031 exchange.

(Id., Ex. 9, p. 4:11-12, 5:5-6, 5:18-19.) Plaintiff responded:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV009868: HIMLEY vs SAMAAN 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Withdraw and Amend Admissions in Department 16D

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 30: admit

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 40: admit

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 46: deny

(Id., Ex. 10, p. 2:30, 3:5, 3:11.)

Discussion

Plaintiff contends that the admissions were the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect as Plaintiff responded to the as a layperson would and he did not have or understand the legal significance of certain documents. As recognized in the Court’s prior ruling continuing trial of this matter, Plaintiff has since retained counsel. After first obtaining a reopening of discovery (which Defendant did not oppose), Plaintiff’s counsel filed the present motion addressing Plaintiff’s prior RFA responses which had been made without counsel’s involvement.

Now with the benefit of legal counsel, Plaintiff seeks to change his responses to denials of RFA Nos. 30 and 40 referring to them as “erroneous admissions” due to Plaintiff’s incorrect legal understanding of “the requirements for a document that could constitute a written contract.” (MPA at 8:23-25; Himley Decl., ¶ 5.) As to RFA No. 46, Plaintiff refers to his response as an “erroneous denial of RFA No. 46” due to Plaintiff’s incorrect understanding of the request which was “vague and poorly worded request that assumes Himley swapped out New York Ave. on a 1031 exchange form for another property because he changed his mind about purchasing New York Avenue.” (MPA at 8:28-9:3; Himley Decl., ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff argues he misinterpreted the request as asking him to admit that he had replaced the New York Ave. with another property identified on his 1031 exchange documents voluntarily. (Himley Decl., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff also states that he does not own a computer and has limited computer skills. As a result, he did not know certain documents and communications existed and did not remember them. (Id., ¶ 4.) He only learned he could obtain prior electronic communications after he obtained counsel. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff supports this motion with further references to his various attestations of fact and documents pertaining to his communications with Defendants that indicate why his prior responses were mistaken when made. (See generally, Himley Decl.) Plaintiff further argues that Defendant will not be prejudiced if his admissions are amended because Defendant has always known the relevant facts as a party to the transaction and the communications. Plaintiff also contends that the amended admissions are consistent with his other discovery responses and documents produced

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV009868: HIMLEY vs SAMAAN 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Withdraw and Amend Admissions in Department 16D

in the action.

Defendant opposes arguing that Plaintiff has not identified any new facts, excusable error, or misunderstandings that would warrant allowing Plaintiff to amend his admissions nearly three years into the litigation. Defendant argues he will be prejudiced if the motion is granted because the recently filed demurrer, anticipated motion for summary judgment, witness examinations, and trial strategy rely on Plaintiff’s admissions. Defendant contends that it would be required to conduct additional written discovery and depositions regarding the newly asserted writings and theories Plaintiff previously admitted did not exist. Defendant argues that the prejudice cannot be cured simply by allowing additional discovery.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300 states:

(a) A party may withdraw or amend an admission made in response to a request for admission only on leave of court granted after notice to all parties.

(b) The court may permit withdrawal or amendment of an admission only if it determines that the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and that the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.

(c) The court may impose conditions on the granting of the motion that are just, including, but not limited to, the following:

(1) An order that the party who obtained the admission be permitted to pursue additional discovery related to the matter involved in the withdrawn or amended admission.

(2) An order that the costs of any additional discovery be borne in whole or in part by the party withdrawing or amending the admission.

This provision applies to admissions expressly made by a party as well as “deemed admissions.” (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 979.) “Section 2033.300 eliminates undeserved windfalls obtained through requests for admission and furthers the policy favoring the resolution of lawsuits on the merits.” (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1418.) The terms “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect” as used in Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300 are given

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV009868: HIMLEY vs SAMAAN 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Withdraw and Amend Admissions in Department 16D

the same meanings as similar terms found in Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). (Id. at p. 1419.) Any doubts must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420.) Importantly, denial of a motion to withdraw or amend an admission “is limited to circumstances where it is clear that the mistake, inadvertence, or neglect was inexcusable, or where it is clear that the withdrawal or amendment would substantially prejudice the party who obtained the admission in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.” (Id. at pp. 1420-1421 [emphasis added].)

Having considered the applicable legal standards, the Court finds that relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300, subdivision (b) is warranted. Based upon the showing made by Plaintiff, at the time Plaintiff received the requests for admission, he was self-represented; did not understand that he could retrieve electronic communications; did not recall that some of the documents and communications existed; and was mistaken as to the legal requirements for a claim made based upon written contract. Thus, Plaintiff presents sufficient evidence to show that he was mistaken both as to the existence of certain factual information that would support the existence of a written contract and the corresponding legal requirements for establishing a written contract.

Indeed, “an honest mistake of law is a valid ground for relief when the legal problem posed ‘ “is complex and debatable.”’” (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 611–612 [discussing Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b)].) “The controlling factors in determining whether a mistake of law is excusable are the reasonableness of the misconception and the justifiability of the failure to determine the correct law.” (Ibid.) Further, to the extent there is any doubt as to whether Plaintiffs’ mistakes were excusable, the Court resolves that doubt in Plaintiff’s favor. (New Albertsons, Inc., supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 1420.)

Here, the alleged written contract was created in the context of a complex real estate transaction, including a 1031 exchange, that involved multiple formal written contracts, other documents and communications, and extension. There appear to be issues whether the written communications between the parties with respect to the $60,000 are sufficiently formal to constitute a written contract or modification of the other formal agreements. Thus, under the circumstances, Plaintiff is also entitled to relief based on his mistake of law.

Additionally, Defendant has not demonstrated that he will be substantially prejudiced if the motion is granted. As discussed above, “Section 2033.300 eliminates undeserved windfalls obtained through requests for admission and furthers the policy favoring the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV009868: HIMLEY vs SAMAAN 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Withdraw and Amend Admissions in Department 16D

resolution of lawsuits on the merits.” (New Albertsons, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 1418.) The Court observes that Plaintiff’s proposed amended responses to deny RFA Nos. 30 and 40 primarily relate to the legal theory upon which he seeks to recover the $60,000 he contends he is entitled to. They do not substantially alter any facts or underlying evidence that forms the basis of this action. Nor does Plaintiff’s proposed amended admission to RFA No. 46 create any new factual issues. Although Defendant generally contends that he had incurred in excess of $60,000 in attorney’s fees and costs “directly attributable to Plaintiff’s repeated admissions and the litigation strategy they dictated,” he fails to explain with sufficiency how these costs relate to the specific three RFA responses at issue (including one which proposes a new admission, not a new denial) rather than the costs of the entire action. (Opposition at p. 10:24-25.)

Additionally, Defendant contends that he drafted his pending demurrer and other, not yet filed motions, based on Plaintiff’s admission and he will be prejudiced if Plaintiff is allowed to amend his admissions. This generalized statement is deficient in demonstrating substantial prejudice. Defendant fails to explain how he will be prevented from maintaining his defense on the merits if this motion is granted. Furthermore, the Court notes that granting this motion does not preclude Defendant from seeking cost of proof sanctions (if necessary) under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420(a), nor does it preclude Defendant from arguing regarding the credibility of Plaintiff’s responses to the trier of fact.

Thus, the Court cannot conclude that Defendant will be substantially prejudiced if Plaintiff’s request for relief is granted.

As explained earlier, denial of a motion to withdraw or amend an admission “is limited to circumstances where it is clear that the mistake, inadvertence, or neglect was inexcusable, or where it is clear that the withdrawal or amendment would substantially prejudice the party who obtained the admission in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.” (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403,1420-1421.) The moving and opposing papers here do not establish any such clarity warranting denial of this motion.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw and amend his admissions is granted. The Court need not rule on Plaintiff’s request to amend his response to Form Interrogatory 17.1 as amendments to interrogatories do not require leave of court. However, the Court orders that such amended responses be promptly served with Plaintiff’s amended responses to the RFAs at issue.

Defendant’s request for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, which is embedded within Defendant’s opposition brief, is denied. Even aside from the fact that Plaintiff’s motion is being granted, a motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 requires that the motion “shall be made separately from other motions or requests.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (c)(1).) Code of Civil Procedure

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV009868: HIMLEY vs SAMAAN 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Withdraw and Amend Admissions in Department 16D

section 128.7 contains a 21-day safe harbor provision. Section 128.7, subdivision (c)(1) establishes that a notice of motion for sanctions “shall be served as provided in Section 1010, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion, or any other period as the court may prescribe, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn[.]” “[T]he safe harbor period is mandatory and the full 21 days must be provided absent a court order shortening that time if sanctions are to be awarded.” (Li v. Majestic Industry Hills LLC (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 585, 595.) Thus, even if Plaintiff’s motion had not been granted, Defendant’s request for sanctions under section 128.7 would be denied on procedural grounds.

Disposition

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff, if it has not already done so, shall serve its verified amended responses within 10 calendar days of this order.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)