DEPARTMENT 29 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2) Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE. 4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) IMPORTANT: In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely. The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited. The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. ALSO NOTE: If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar. THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT. Case Number: 22STCV30067 Hearing Date: March 13, 2025 Dept: 29 Rivera v. Onyx Glendale 22STCV30067 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) Tentative The motions are granted. The requests for sanctions are granted in part. Background On September 14, 2022, Plaintiff Gisela Rivera (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Onyx Glendale and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for premises liability and general negligence arising out of an incident on July 20, 2020, in which, Plaintiff alleges she was trapped in an elevator. On March 5, 2024, Defendant MCP Onyx, LLC (erroneously sued as Onyx Glendale) (“Defendant”) filed an answer to the complaint. On February 18, 2025, Plaintiff these two motions: (1) to compel Defendant to provide responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One); and (2) to compel Defendant to provide responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One). Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions. Defendant filed oppositions on February 28, and Plaintiff filed replies on March 6. Legal Standard A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd.(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).) In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) When a party moves to compel initial responses to interrogatories, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes [the motion], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), defines “[m]isuses of the discovery process” to include “[f]ailing to respond to or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where a party or attorney has engaged in misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose a monetary sanction in the amount of “the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) “[P]roviding untimely responses does not divest the trial court of its authority [to hear a motion to compel responses].” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 407.) Even if the untimely response “does not contain objections [and] substantially resolve[s] the issues raised by a motion to compel responses … the trial court retains the authority to hear the motion.” (Id. at pp. 408-409.) This rule gives “an important incentive for parties to respond to discovery in a timely fashion.” (Id. at p. 408.) If “the propounding party [does not] take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions,” the trial court may “deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions.” (Id. at p. 409.) “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).) Discussion On October 10, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant with Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One). (Sarukhanyan Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.) Defendant requested, and Plaintiff agreed to, four extensions of time for Defendant to respond; with the extensions, Defendant’s responses were due on January 7, 2025. (Id., ¶ 4 & Exhs. B.) No responses were received by January 7. (Id., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff offered an extension to January 20. (Id., ¶ 5 & Exhs. C.) On January 21, Defendant emailed Plaintiff and stated, “I am still obtaining information from in-house counsel and anticipate I can have them to you by the end of the week.” (Id., Exhs. C.) No responses were received that week. (Id., ¶ 5.) On February 11, Plaintiff emailed and stated that because no responses had been served, Plaintiff intended to file a motion to compel unless the responses were received the next day. (Id. ¶ 5 & Exhs. C.) Plaintiff filed this motion on February 18, 2025. As of that day, no responses had been received. (Id., ¶ 5.) Defendant’s counsel states that he “attempted to serve” responses by email on January 27 but counsel received a message that the delivery “had been delayed” because the email “exceeded Google’s message size limits.” (Salas Decls., ¶¶ 4-5 & Exhs. A-B.) The message stated that this was a “warning message only” and advised, “You do not need to resend your message.” (Id., Exhs. B.) When Plaintiff advised Defendant that Plaintiff had not received the responses on February 11, Defendant responded that same day by resending the email with the responses attached. (Id., ¶ 6 & Exhd. D.) Defendant received the same “warning message.” (Id., ¶ 6 & Exhs. E.) On February 19, two days after being served with this motion to compel, Defendant sent an email to Plaintiff with a Dropbox link to the discovery responses. (Id., ¶ 7 & Exhs. F.) Plaintiff states that the responses received on February 19 were not verified and are not code-compliant. (Sarukhanyan Reply Decls., ¶¶ 6-7.) On this record, the motions to compel are granted. Plaintiff propounded discovery in October 2024, and even now, five months later, Defendant has not provided verified responses. A response must be verified. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.250, subd. (a).) Unverified discovery responses “are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Super. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also granted in part. Failing to provide a verified discovery response is not substantially justified, and there are no other circumstances present that would make the imposition of a sanction unjust. Taking into account the economies of scale associated with preparing multiple discovery motions, the Court sets sanctions for each motion in the amount of $760, based on two attorneys of attorney time multiplied by a reasonable billing rate of $350 per hour for work of this nature, plus a $60 filing fee. (See Sarukhanyan Decls., ¶ 6.) The Court expresses no view on whether the unverified responses are or are not otherwise code-compliant. Conclusion The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions to compel. The Court ORDERS Defendant to provide written, verified, complete, code-compliant responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 10 days of notice. The Court ORDERS Defendant to provide written, verified, complete, code-compliant responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 10 days of notice. The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions. The Court ORDERS Defendant and counsel of record Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $1,520 to Plaintiff (through counsel of record) within 30 days of notice. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

DEPARTMENT 29 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE. 4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020)
IMPORTANT: In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely. The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited. The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants.
ALSO NOTE: If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar. THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 22STCV30067 Hearing Date: March 13, 2025 Dept: 29

Rivera v. Onyx Glendale
22STCV30067
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One)

Tentative

The motions are granted.

The requests for sanctions are granted in part.

Background

On September 14, 2022, Plaintiff Gisela Rivera (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Onyx Glendale and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for premises liability and general negligence arising out of an incident on July 20, 2020, in which, Plaintiff alleges she was trapped in an elevator.

On March 5, 2024, Defendant MCP Onyx, LLC (erroneously sued as Onyx Glendale) (“Defendant”) filed an answer to the complaint.

On February 18, 2025, Plaintiff these two motions: (1) to compel Defendant to provide responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One); and (2) to compel Defendant to provide responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One). Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions. Defendant filed oppositions on February 28, and Plaintiff filed replies on March 6.

Legal Standard

A party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd.(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).) In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

When a party moves to compel initial responses to interrogatories, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes [the motion], unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), defines “[m]isuses of the discovery process” to include “[f]ailing to respond to or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where a party or attorney has engaged in misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose a monetary sanction in the amount of “the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

“[P]roviding untimely responses does not divest the trial court of its authority [to hear a motion to compel responses].” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 407.) Even if the untimely response “does not contain objections [and] substantially resolve[s] the issues raised by a motion to compel responses … the trial court retains the authority to hear the motion.” (Id. at pp. 408-409.) This rule gives “an important incentive for parties to respond to discovery in a timely fashion.” (Id. at p. 408.) If “the propounding party [does not] take the motion off calendar or narrow its scope to the issue of sanctions,” the trial court may “deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part, and just impose sanctions.” (Id. at p. 409.) “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

Discussion

On October 10, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant with Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One). (Sarukhanyan Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.) Defendant requested, and Plaintiff agreed to, four extensions of time for Defendant to respond; with the extensions, Defendant’s responses were due on January 7, 2025. (Id., ¶ 4 & Exhs. B.)

No responses were received by January 7. (Id., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff offered an extension to January 20. (Id., ¶ 5 & Exhs. C.) On January 21, Defendant emailed Plaintiff and stated, “I am still obtaining information from in-house counsel and anticipate I can have them to you by the end of the week.” (Id., Exhs. C.)

No responses were received that week. (Id., ¶ 5.) On February 11, Plaintiff emailed and stated that because no responses had been served, Plaintiff intended to file a motion to compel unless the responses were received the next day. (Id. ¶ 5 & Exhs. C.)

Plaintiff filed this motion on February 18, 2025. As of that day, no responses had been received. (Id., ¶ 5.)

Defendant’s counsel states that he “attempted to serve” responses by email on January 27 but counsel received a message that the delivery “had been delayed” because the email “exceeded Google’s message size limits.” (Salas Decls., ¶¶ 4-5 & Exhs. A-B.) The message stated that this was a “warning message only” and advised, “You do not need to resend your message.” (Id., Exhs. B.)

When Plaintiff advised Defendant that Plaintiff had not received the responses on February 11, Defendant responded that same day by resending the email with the responses attached. (Id., ¶ 6 & Exhd. D.) Defendant received the same “warning message.” (Id., ¶ 6 & Exhs. E.)

On February 19, two days after being served with this motion to compel, Defendant sent an email to Plaintiff with a Dropbox link to the discovery responses. (Id., ¶ 7 & Exhs. F.)

Plaintiff states that the responses received on February 19 were not verified and are not code-compliant. (Sarukhanyan Reply Decls., ¶¶ 6-7.)

On this record, the motions to compel are granted. Plaintiff propounded discovery in October 2024, and even now, five months later, Defendant has not provided verified responses. A response must be verified. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.250, subd. (a).) Unverified discovery responses “are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Super. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also granted in part. Failing to provide a verified discovery response is not substantially justified, and there are no other circumstances present that would make the imposition of a sanction unjust. Taking into account the economies of scale associated with preparing multiple discovery motions, the Court sets sanctions for each motion in the amount of $760, based on two attorneys of attorney time multiplied by a reasonable billing rate of $350 per hour for work of this nature, plus a $60 filing fee. (See Sarukhanyan Decls., ¶ 6.)

The Court expresses no view on whether the unverified responses are or are not otherwise code-compliant.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions to compel.

The Court ORDERS Defendant to provide written, verified, complete, code-compliant responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) within 10 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Defendant to provide written, verified, complete, code-compliant responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) within 10 days of notice.

The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions.

The Court ORDERS Defendant and counsel of record Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $1,520 to Plaintiff (through counsel of record) within 30 days of notice.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

DEPARTMENT 29 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2) Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE. 4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) IMPORTANT: In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely. The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited. The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. ALSO NOTE: If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar. THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT. Case Number: 20STCV28133 Hearing Date: March 10, 2025 Dept: 29 Lopez v. Reyes 20STCV28133 Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise (Sergio Reyes, age 15) Tentative The Court excuses the personal appearance of the claimant and the guardian ad litem. Counsel may appear by telephone or video conference call. On October 22, 2024, the Court reviewed a prior petition and identified certain issues that needed to be addressed before the Court could approve the petition and set a hearing for January 8, 2025. No new petition was submitted and there was no appearance at the hearing. The Court continued the hearing to March 10, 2025. On January 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a new petition. The new petition does not address the issues previously identified by the Court. The following issues must be addressed before the Court can approve the petition: 1. 1. Petition, Item No. 4, box a is still incorrectly checked. The minor’s claims are the subject of a pending action (this action, Case No. 20STCV28133), and so box b should be checked and properly filled out. 2. 2. Petition, Item No. 11a states that the gross amount of the settlement to be distributed on behalf of Sergio Reyes is $8,000. Item No. 12b(3) states that it is $10,000. Item No. 17a states that it is $8,000. This inconsistency must be resolved. 3. 3. Petition, Item No. 12b(3) lists the payment to Juan Duarte and claimant Sergio Reyes, but it omits any reference to Gerardo Reyes, who is also a settling plaintiff. This omission must be resolved. 4. 4. Petition, Item No. 12b(5). This box must be checked, and the petition must include an Attachment 12 setting forth the reasons for the apportionment of the settlement payments between the claimant and each other plaintiff or claimant. 5. 5. Petition, Item 14a. The attorney-client fee agreement must be attached to the petition as Attachment 14a. 6. 6. Petition, Item No. 14b. Counsel seeks $54.95 in costs but does not adequately support the request for reimbursement of these reported costs. Further, counsel’s declaration only requests $29.95 in costs. 7. 7. Petition, Attachment 19b(4). This attachment must address the requirements of Probate Code section 3401. A parent must verify under oath that the estate of the minor does not exceed $5,000. The hearing is continued for approximately 60 days. Petitioner must submit a new petition and proposed order that addresses the issues identified above. Moving party is ordered to give notice. Case Number: 21STCV05231 Hearing Date: March 10, 2025 Dept: 29 Mora v. Gasparyan 21STCV05231 Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise Orders to Show Cause Tentative The Court excuses the personal appearance of the claimant and the guardian ad litem. Counsel may appear by telephone or video conference call. The Court has reviewed the Petition to Approve Minor’s Compromise filed on February 18, 2025. All substantive and procedural requirements are satisfied. The Court finds the proposed settlement fair and reasonable. The Petition is granted. The proposed orders are approved. The orders to show cause are discharged. The Court sets an OSC re proof of deposit of funds into blocked account for ________________. Moving party to give notice. Case Number: 21STCV32259 Hearing Date: March 10, 2025 Dept: 29 May v. Torres 21STCV32259 Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial Tentative The motion is granted. Background On August 31, 2021, Indalicia May (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint with a single cause of action for negligence against Nicholas Torres and Heat Wave Air Conditioning & Heating, LLC (Defendants). The Complaint stems from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on September 9, 2019. The motion now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial (the Motion). The Motion is unopposed. Legal Standard California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that although disfavored, the trial date may be continued for “good cause,” which includes (without limitation): (1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) The addition of a new party if: (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case; (6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. (Id., Rule 3.1332(c).) The court may also consider the following factors: “(1) The proximity of the trial date; (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; (3) The length of the continuance requested; (4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.” (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1332(d).) Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery proceedings. In doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery, (2) the diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the likelihood of interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050.) Discussion With this Motion, Plaintiff requests a four-month trial continuance from the currently scheduled trial for April 25, 2025 to August 15, 2025. Plaintiff files the Motion arguing good cause exists here for several reasons. First, Plaintiff’s counsel will be out of the country from April 20, 2025 to April 30, 2025. The current trial is scheduled for April 25, 2025; therefore, Plaintiff’s counsel would be unavailable. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)(2).) Additionally, Defense counsel will be engaged in jury trials on April 22, 2025 and April 23, 2025 and will likely be unavailable for the currently scheduled trial for the instant case. Second, necessary discovery for both parties has not been completed. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)(6).) Plaintiff alleges a traumatic brain injury (TBI) along with other injuries for which she is still receiving treatment for. Additionally, Plaintiff is in the process of scheduling a cervical epidural steroid injection for March of 2025. Moreover, because Plaintiff is still undergoing significant treatment for her injuries, the requested four-month continuance will allow the parties to conduct adequate additional discovery, including obtaining updated medical records. Finally, the parties are also considering mediation, which if successful could alleviate the need for trial altogether. Although there have been five prior continuances, Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for a sixth. Conclusion The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial. The Court CONTINUES trial to a date on or after August 15, 2025. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date. The Court ADVISES COUNSEL AND PARTIS TO TREAT THE TRIAL DATE AS FIRM. Given the age of the case and the number of continuances that have already been granted, the Court will look with disfavor on any further request to continue trial. Moving party is ordered to give notice. Case Number: 21STCV36211 Hearing Date: March 10, 2025 Dept: 29 Espindola v. Getaround, Inc. 21STCV36211 Motion of Defendant Getaround for an Order Deeming Plaintiff to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set Two) Tentative The motion is granted. Background On October 1, 2021, Plaintiff Xochitl Alvarez Espindola (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants GetAround, Inc. (“Getaround”), Luke Mitchell Crawford (“Crawford”), and Does 1 through 50 for negligence, negligence per se, and statutory liability. Plaintiff alleges that on January 15, 2021, she was injured in a vehicle accident; Defendant Crawford was the other driver, and he was driving a vehicle procured through a rideshare program operated by Defendant GetAround. On January 19, 2022, GetAround filed an answer. On July 27, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Max Cherniavsky Nobel as Doe 1. On January 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request to dismiss this defendant. On May 17, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Tatiana Ikonnikova (“Defendant”) as Doe 2. On January 22, 2024, the Court denied Getaround’s motion for summary judgment. On February 27, 2024, Defendant and Crawford each filed an answer. On August 29, 2024, Plaintiff substituted in as her own counsel of record. As it relates to the matter set for hearing on March 10, 2025, Defendant Getaround served Plaintiff with Requests for Admission (Set Two) on September 16, 2024. (Zicarelli Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.) Plaintiff did not respond. (Id., ¶ 3.) On February 4, 2025, Defendant Getaround filed and served this motion for an order deeming Plaintiff to have admitted the truth of the matters specified in Requests for Admission (Set Two). No opposition has been filed. Legal Standard A party must respond to requests for admission within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd.(a).) If a party to whom requests for admission are directed does not provide a timely response, the propounding party “may move for an order that … the truth of [the] matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for such a motion, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2033.280; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).) In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) The court “shall” make the order that the truth of the matters specified in the request be deemed admitted unless the court “finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c); see St. Mary v. Super. Ct. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778-780.) Discussion On September 16, 2024, Getaround served Plaintiff with Requests for Admission (Set Two). (Zicarelli Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.) Plaintiff did not respond. (Id., ¶ 3.) Defendant Getaround need not show anything more. The motion for a deemed-admitted order is granted. Getaround does not seek sanctions. Conclusion The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant Getaround for a deemed-admitted order. The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff is DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED THE TRUTH of the matters specified in Getaround’s Requests for Admission (Set Two). Moving party is ordered to give notice. Case Number: 22STCV22020 Hearing Date: March 10, 2025 Dept: 29 Contreras v. Cha 22STCV22020 Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise Tentative The Court excuses the personal appearance of the claimant and the guardian ad litem. Counsel may appear by telephone or video conference call. On January 4, 2024, Plaintiff failed to appear at trial, and the Court dismissed this case pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (b)(3). “A dismissal terminates an action.” (Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Mills (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1007.) The entry of dismissal of an entire action divests the trial court of jurisdiction to enter further orders in that action, except for the limited purpose of awarding costs and statutory attorney fees or entertaining a motion to vacate this dismissal. (Gogri v. Jack in the Box Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 255, 261; Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Mills (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1008; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).). Any other subsequent orders made by the court are void. (Paniagua v. Orange County Fire Authority (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 83, 89.) As counsel has not moved to set aside the dismissal, and only moves to confirm the petition for minor’s compromise, the Court cannot grant this requested relief. The petition is denied without prejudice. Moving party to give notice. Case Number: 22STCV38570 Hearing Date: March 10, 2025 Dept: 29 Kemper Insurance Company v. Ferguson 22STCV38570 Petition for Order Striking and Releasing Lien or Other Encumbrance on Property of Public Officer or Employee filed by Petitioner Neenah A. Ferguson Tentative The hearing on the petition is continued. Petitioner is ordered to serve all parties and to file proof of service with the Court. Background On December 12, 2022, Kemper Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this subrogation action against Defendant Neenah Ferguson (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 20, inclusive, asserting one cause of action for general negligence. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff insured Jonathan Little (“Little”) under a homeowner’s policy and made payments to Little under the policy for damages that Plaintiff alleges were caused by Defendant. On February 13, 2024, default was entered against Defendant. On April 25, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed the Doe defendants. On September 10, 2024, the Court entered default judgment against Defendant for $35,177.73, consisting of $33,354.96 in damages, $1,202.60 in prejudgment interest, and $620.17 in costs. On February 13, 2025, Defendant filed the instant Petition for Order Striking and Releasing Lien or Other Encumbrance on Property of Public Officer or Employee. Defendant also appealed the order entering default judgment. Legal Standard “A person shall not file or record, or direct another to file or record, a lawsuit, lien, or other encumbrance, including a notice of lis pendens, against another person or entity knowing it is false, with the intent to harass the person or entity or to influence or hinder the person in discharging his or her official duties if the person is a public officer or employee.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 765.010, subd. (b).) “‘Harass’ means engage in knowing and willful conduct that serves no legitimate purpose.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 765.010, subd. (a)(1).) “A person or entity whose property is subject to a lien or encumbrance in violation of this section [i.e., Code Civ. Proc., § 765.010] may petition the superior court of the county in which the person or entity resides or in which the property is located for an order, which may be granted ex parte, directing the lien or other encumbrance claimant to appear at a hearing before the court and show cause why the lien or other encumbrance should not be stricken and other relief provided by this article should not be granted.’’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 765.010, subd. (c)(1).) “A petition under this article shall state the grounds upon which relief is requested, and shall be supported by the affidavit of the petitioner or the petitioner’s attorney setting forth a concise statement of the facts upon which the motion is based.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 765.020.) “The court shall schedule the hearing no earlier than 14 days after the date of the order. The scheduled date of the hearing shall allow adequate time for notice of the hearing.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 765.010, subd. (c)(2).) “If the court determines that the lien or other encumbrance is in violation of Section 765.010, the court shall issue an order striking and releasing the lien or other encumbrance and may award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the petitioner to be paid by the lien or other encumbrance claimant. If the court determines that the lien or other encumbrance is valid, the court shall issue an order so stating and may award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the encumbrance claimant to be paid by the petitioner. The court may direct that an order issued pursuant to this section be recorded.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 765.030.) Discussion Defendant has filed a petition for Order Striking and Releasing Lien or Other Encumbrance on Property of Public Officer or Employee, arguing that the lien on a property known as 6428 Blaisdell Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 is illegal because that property does not belong to the Defendant. In the petition, Defendant asks the Court to (1) set an Order to Show Cause why the lien should not be stricken and released, and (2) enter an order striking and releasing that lien. (Petition, Item 9.) However, the Court notes that Defendant did not file proof of service of the petition with the Court. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(c) [“Proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for the hearing”].) Therefore, the Court will continue the hearing and require Defendant to serve her petition on Plaintiff and file a proof of service before the next hearing date. Conclusion The Petition for Order Striking and Releasing Lien or Other Encumbrance on Property of Public Officer or Employee filed by Petitioner Neenah A. Ferguson is CONTINUED for approximately 30 days to 4/__/ 25, at 1:30 PM, Dept. 29, Spring Street Courthouse. Defendant Neenah Ferguson is ordered to serve her petition on Plaintiff Kemper Insurance Company. Defendant is further ordered to file, at least 5 days before the next hearing, proof of service of that petition. Moving party to give notice. Case Number: 23STCV08115 Hearing Date: March 10, 2025 Dept: 29 Ramirez v. Uber Technologies, Inc. 23STCV08115 Motion to Bifurcate Liability and Damages filed by Defendant Jose Carbajal Joinder filed by Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC and Rasier-CA, LLC Tentative The motion is DENIED without prejudice. Background On April 12, 2023, Plaintiff Jose Miguel Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser, LLC, Raiser-CA, LLC (collectively, “Uber Defendants”), Jose Carbajal (“Carbajal”), and DOES 1 to 50 for injuries Plaintiff sustained when a ride-share vehicle allegedly controlled by Defendants collided with Plaintiff. Trial is currently set for March 18, 2025. On February 6, 2025, Defendant Carbajal filed this instant motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages. On February 10, 2025, Uber Defendants filed a joinder to the motion. On February 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On March 3, 2025, Carbajal filed a reply. Discussion Defendants’ motion to bifurcate is denied without prejudice to Defendants raising this issue for the trial judge to consider, on its own motion, at the time that the judge rules upon motions in limine. The Court orders that the bifurcation briefing be included in the trial binders in Tab B along with any motions in limine filed in the case. The Court recognizes that CRC Rule 3.57(c) states, “A motion in limine may not be used for the purpose of seeking an order to try an issue before the trial of another issue or issues,” and thus this order should not be construed in a way that contradicts this rule. Defendant may direct the trial court to this order, which should not be construed to in any way bind the trial court in making a bifurcation decision on its own motion. Defendant properly sought a bifurcation order in advance of the trial date. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 598 (court to issue order bifurcating case on noticed motion by the pretrial conference or, absent a pretrial conference, no later than 30 days in advance of trial).) However, a trial court may also “on its own motion . . . make such an order at any time.” (Ibid.) On the facts of this case and given that in the Personal Injury Court system this case will be tried by a different court than the court ruling on this motion, the Court finds it appropriate for the trial judge to determine whether bifurcation is warranted. In the PI Court system, the trial court rules on motions in limine, even those that significantly affect trial preparation. While this bifurcation request is not a motion in limine, the logic of having the trial judge determine it here is similar. The request for bifurcation here appears to be one for which the trial judge should make a discretionary determination based on its experience and role in managing the trial. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the motion to bifurcate is DENIED without prejudice. Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.

DEPARTMENT 29 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Case Number: 20STCV28133 Hearing Date: March 10, 2025 Dept: 29

Lopez v. Reyes
20STCV28133
Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise (Sergio Reyes, age 15)

Tentative

The
Court excuses the personal appearance of the claimant and the guardian ad
litem. Counsel may appear by telephone or video conference call.

On October 22, 2024, the Court reviewed a prior petition and identified certain issues that needed to be addressed before the Court could approve the petition and set a hearing for January 8, 2025. No new petition was submitted and there was no appearance at the hearing. The Court continued the hearing to March 10, 2025.

On January 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a new petition. The new petition does not address the issues previously identified by the Court. The following issues must be addressed before the Court can approve the petition:

1. 1. Petition, Item No. 4, box a is still incorrectly checked. The minor’s claims are the subject of a pending action (this action, Case No. 20STCV28133), and so box b should be checked and properly filled out.

2. 2. Petition, Item No. 11a states that the gross amount of the settlement to be distributed on behalf of Sergio Reyes is $8,000. Item No. 12b(3) states that it is $10,000. Item No. 17a states that it is $8,000. This inconsistency must be resolved.

3. 3. Petition, Item No. 12b(3) lists the payment to Juan Duarte and claimant Sergio Reyes, but it omits any reference to Gerardo Reyes, who is also a settling plaintiff. This omission must be resolved.

4. 4. Petition, Item No. 12b(5). This box must be checked, and the petition must include an Attachment 12 setting forth the reasons for the apportionment of the settlement payments between the claimant and each other plaintiff or claimant.

5. 5. Petition, Item 14a. The attorney-client fee agreement must be attached to the petition as Attachment 14a.

6. 6. Petition, Item No. 14b. Counsel seeks $54.95 in costs but does not adequately support the request for reimbursement of these reported costs. Further, counsel’s declaration only requests $29.95 in costs.

7. 7. Petition, Attachment 19b(4). This attachment must address the requirements of Probate Code section 3401. A parent must verify under oath that the estate of the minor does not exceed $5,000.

The hearing is continued for approximately 60 days. Petitioner must submit a new petition and proposed order that addresses the issues identified above.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 21STCV05231 Hearing Date: March 10, 2025 Dept: 29

Mora v. Gasparyan
21STCV05231
Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise
Orders to Show Cause

Tentative

The Court excuses the personal appearance of the claimant and the guardian ad litem. Counsel may appear by telephone or video conference call.

The Court has reviewed the Petition to Approve Minor’s Compromise filed on February 18, 2025. All substantive and procedural requirements are satisfied. The Court finds the proposed settlement fair and reasonable.

The Petition is granted. The proposed orders are approved.

The orders to show cause are discharged.

The Court sets an OSC re proof of deposit of funds into blocked account for ________________.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 21STCV32259 Hearing Date: March 10, 2025 Dept: 29

May v. Torres
21STCV32259
Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On August 31, 2021, Indalicia May (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint with a single cause of action for negligence against Nicholas Torres and Heat Wave Air Conditioning & Heating, LLC (Defendants). The Complaint stems from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on September 9, 2019.

The motion now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial (the Motion). The Motion is unopposed.

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that although disfavored, the trial date may be continued for “good cause,” which includes (without limitation):

(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;

(5) The addition of a new party if:

(A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or

(B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case;

(6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or

(7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.

(Id., Rule 3.1332(c).)

The court may also consider the following factors: “(1) The proximity of the trial date; (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; (3) The length of the continuance requested; (4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.” (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1332(d).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery proceedings. In doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery, (2) the diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the likelihood of interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2024.050.)

Discussion

With this Motion, Plaintiff requests a four-month trial continuance from the currently scheduled trial for April 25, 2025 to August 15, 2025. Plaintiff files the Motion arguing good cause exists here for several reasons. First, Plaintiff’s counsel will be out of the country from April 20, 2025 to April 30, 2025. The current trial is scheduled for April 25, 2025; therefore, Plaintiff’s counsel would be unavailable. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)(2).) Additionally, Defense counsel will be engaged in jury trials on April 22, 2025 and April 23, 2025 and will likely be unavailable for the currently scheduled trial for the instant case.

Second, necessary discovery for both parties has not been completed. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)(6).) Plaintiff alleges a traumatic brain injury (TBI) along with other injuries for which she is still receiving treatment for. Additionally, Plaintiff is in the process of scheduling a cervical epidural steroid injection for March of 2025. Moreover, because Plaintiff is still undergoing significant treatment for her injuries, the requested four-month continuance will allow the parties to conduct adequate additional discovery, including obtaining updated medical records. Finally, the parties are also considering mediation, which if successful could alleviate the need for trial altogether. Although there have been five prior continuances, Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for a sixth.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial.

The Court CONTINUES trial to a date on or after August 15, 2025. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

The Court ADVISES COUNSEL AND PARTIS TO TREAT THE TRIAL DATE AS FIRM. Given the age of the case and the number of continuances that have already been granted, the Court will look with disfavor on any further request to continue trial.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 21STCV36211 Hearing Date: March 10, 2025 Dept: 29

Espindola v. Getaround, Inc.
21STCV36211
Motion of Defendant Getaround for an Order Deeming Plaintiff to Have Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission (Set Two)

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On October 1, 2021, Plaintiff Xochitl Alvarez Espindola (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants GetAround, Inc. (“Getaround”), Luke Mitchell Crawford (“Crawford”), and Does 1 through 50 for negligence, negligence per se, and statutory liability. Plaintiff alleges that on January 15, 2021, she was injured in a vehicle accident; Defendant Crawford was the other driver, and he was driving a vehicle procured through a rideshare program operated by Defendant GetAround.

On January 19, 2022, GetAround filed an answer.

On July 27, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Max Cherniavsky Nobel as Doe 1. On January 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request to dismiss this defendant.

On May 17, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Tatiana Ikonnikova (“Defendant”) as Doe 2.

On January 22, 2024, the Court denied Getaround’s motion for summary judgment.

On February 27, 2024, Defendant and Crawford each filed an answer.

On August 29, 2024, Plaintiff substituted in as her own counsel of record.

As it relates to the matter set for hearing on March 10, 2025, Defendant Getaround served Plaintiff with Requests for Admission (Set Two) on September 16, 2024. (Zicarelli Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.) Plaintiff did not respond. (Id., ¶ 3.)

On February 4, 2025, Defendant Getaround filed and served this motion for an order deeming Plaintiff to have admitted the truth of the matters specified in Requests for Admission (Set Two).

No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

A party must respond to requests for admission within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd.(a).) If a party to whom requests for admission are directed does not provide a timely response, the propounding party “may move for an order that … the truth of [the] matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) There is no time limit for such a motion, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See id., § 2033.280; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.) Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1).) In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)

The court “shall” make the order that the truth of the matters specified in the request be deemed admitted unless the court “finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c); see St. Mary v. Super. Ct. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778-780.)

Discussion

On September 16, 2024, Getaround served Plaintiff with Requests for Admission (Set Two). (Zicarelli Decl., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.) Plaintiff did not respond. (Id., ¶ 3.)

Defendant Getaround need not show anything more. The motion for a deemed-admitted order is granted.

Getaround does not seek sanctions.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant Getaround for a deemed-admitted order.

The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff is DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED THE TRUTH of the matters specified in Getaround’s Requests for Admission (Set Two).

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 22STCV22020 Hearing Date: March 10, 2025 Dept: 29

Contreras v. Cha
22STCV22020
Petition for Approval of Minor’s Compromise

Tentative

The Court excuses the personal appearance of the claimant and the guardian ad litem. Counsel may appear by telephone or video conference call.

On January 4, 2024, Plaintiff failed to appear at trial, and the Court dismissed this case pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (b)(3).

“A dismissal terminates an action.” (Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Mills (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1007.) The entry of dismissal of an entire action divests the trial court of jurisdiction to enter further orders in that action, except for the limited purpose of awarding costs and statutory attorney fees or entertaining a motion to vacate this dismissal. (Gogri v. Jack in the Box Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 255, 261; Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Mills (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1008; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).). Any other subsequent orders made by the court are void. (Paniagua v. Orange County Fire Authority (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 83, 89.)

As counsel has not moved to set aside the dismissal, and only moves to confirm the petition for minor’s compromise, the Court cannot grant this requested relief.

The petition is denied without prejudice.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 22STCV38570 Hearing Date: March 10, 2025 Dept: 29

Kemper Insurance Company v. Ferguson
22STCV38570

Petition for Order Striking and Releasing Lien or Other Encumbrance on Property of Public Officer or Employee filed by Petitioner Neenah A. Ferguson

Tentative

The hearing on the petition is continued. Petitioner is ordered to serve all parties and to file proof of service with the Court.

Background

On December 12, 2022, Kemper Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this subrogation action against Defendant Neenah Ferguson (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 20, inclusive, asserting one cause of action for general negligence. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff insured Jonathan Little (“Little”) under a homeowner’s policy and made payments to Little under the policy for damages that Plaintiff alleges were caused by Defendant.

On February 13, 2024, default was entered against Defendant.

On April 25, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed the Doe defendants.

On September 10, 2024, the Court entered default judgment against Defendant for $35,177.73, consisting of $33,354.96 in damages, $1,202.60 in prejudgment interest, and $620.17 in costs.

On February 13, 2025, Defendant filed the instant Petition for Order Striking and Releasing Lien or Other Encumbrance on Property of Public Officer or Employee. Defendant also appealed the order entering default judgment.

Legal Standard

“A person shall not file or record, or direct another to file or record, a lawsuit, lien, or other encumbrance, including a notice of lis pendens, against another person or entity knowing it is false, with the intent to harass the person or entity or to influence or hinder the person in discharging his or her official duties if the person is a public officer or employee.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 765.010, subd. (b).) “‘Harass’ means engage in knowing and willful conduct that serves no legitimate purpose.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 765.010, subd. (a)(1).)

“A person or entity whose property is subject to a lien or encumbrance in violation of this section [i.e., Code Civ. Proc., § 765.010] may petition the superior court of the county in which the person or entity resides or in which the property is located for an order, which may be granted ex parte, directing the lien or other encumbrance claimant to appear at a hearing before the court and show cause why the lien or other encumbrance should not be stricken and other relief provided by this article should not be granted.’’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 765.010, subd. (c)(1).)

“A petition under this article shall state the grounds upon which relief is requested, and shall be supported by the affidavit of the petitioner or the petitioner’s attorney setting forth a concise statement of the facts upon which the motion is based.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 765.020.)

“The court shall schedule the hearing no earlier than 14 days after the date of the order. The scheduled date of the hearing shall allow adequate time for notice of the hearing.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 765.010, subd. (c)(2).)

“If the court determines that the lien or other encumbrance is in violation of Section 765.010, the court shall issue an order striking and releasing the lien or other encumbrance and may award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the petitioner to be paid by the lien or other encumbrance claimant. If the court determines that the lien or other encumbrance is valid, the court shall issue an order so stating and may award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the encumbrance claimant to be paid by the petitioner. The court may direct that an order issued pursuant to this section be recorded.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 765.030.)

Discussion

Defendant has filed a petition for Order Striking and Releasing Lien or Other Encumbrance on Property of Public Officer or Employee, arguing that the lien on a property known as 6428 Blaisdell Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 is illegal because that property does not belong to the Defendant. In the petition, Defendant asks the Court to (1) set an Order to Show Cause why the lien should not be stricken and released, and (2) enter an order striking and releasing that lien. (Petition, Item 9.)

However, the Court notes that Defendant did not file proof of service of the petition with the Court. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(c) [“Proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for the hearing”].)

Therefore, the Court will continue the hearing and require Defendant to serve her petition on Plaintiff and file a proof of service before the next hearing date.

Conclusion

The Petition for Order Striking and Releasing Lien or Other Encumbrance on Property of Public Officer or Employee filed by Petitioner Neenah A. Ferguson is CONTINUED for approximately 30 days to 4/__/ 25, at 1:30 PM, Dept. 29, Spring Street Courthouse. Defendant Neenah Ferguson is ordered to serve her petition on Plaintiff Kemper Insurance Company. Defendant is further ordered to file, at least 5 days before the next hearing, proof of service of that petition.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 23STCV08115 Hearing Date: March 10, 2025 Dept: 29

Ramirez v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
23STCV08115
Motion to Bifurcate Liability and Damages filed by Defendant Jose Carbajal
Joinder filed by Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC and Rasier-CA, LLC

Tentative

The motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

On April 12, 2023, Plaintiff Jose Miguel Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser, LLC, Raiser-CA, LLC (collectively, “Uber Defendants”), Jose Carbajal (“Carbajal”), and DOES 1 to 50 for injuries Plaintiff sustained when a ride-share vehicle allegedly controlled by Defendants collided with Plaintiff.

Trial is currently set for March 18, 2025.

On February 6, 2025, Defendant Carbajal filed this instant motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages. On February 10, 2025, Uber Defendants filed a joinder to the motion. On February 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On March 3, 2025, Carbajal filed a reply.

Discussion

Defendants’ motion to bifurcate is denied without prejudice to Defendants raising this issue for the trial judge to consider, on its own motion, at the time that the judge rules upon motions in limine. The Court orders that the bifurcation briefing be included in the trial binders in Tab B along with any motions in limine filed in the case. The Court recognizes that CRC Rule 3.57(c) states, “A motion in limine may not be used for the purpose of seeking an order to try an issue before the trial of another issue or issues,” and thus this order should not be construed in a way that contradicts this rule. Defendant may direct the trial court to this order, which should not be construed to in any way bind the trial court in making a bifurcation decision on its own motion.

Defendant properly sought a bifurcation order in advance of the trial date. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 598 (court to issue order bifurcating case on noticed motion by the pretrial conference or, absent a pretrial conference, no later than 30 days in advance of trial).) However, a trial court may also “on its own motion . . . make such an order at any time.” (Ibid.)

On the facts of this case and given that in the Personal Injury Court system this case will be tried by a different court than the court ruling on this motion, the Court finds it appropriate for the trial judge to determine whether bifurcation is warranted. In the PI Court system, the trial court rules on motions in limine, even those that significantly affect trial preparation. While this bifurcation request is not a motion in limine, the logic of having the trial judge determine it here is similar. The request for bifurcation here appears to be one for which the trial judge should make a discretionary determination based on its experience and role in managing the trial.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion to bifurcate is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.