Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 19STCV02761, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling



 
 
 
 
 


Case Number: 19STCV02761    Hearing Date: March 1, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

MARIA MENDOZA,

                        Plaintiff(s),

            vs.

 

JORGE M. BLANCO-PALMA, ET AL.,

 

                        Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO: 19STCV02761

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER CONTINUING MOTION TO DISMISS 

 

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

March 1, 2023

 

On January 28, 2019, Plaintiff Maria Mendoza filed this action against defendants Jorge M. Blanco-Palma, Ajit Mohan, and Prem Mohan for damages arising from a multi-vehicle accident.  On December 16, 2019, this matter was consolidated with Case No. 19STCV04154, which was filed by Norma Isabel Larroza (“Larroza”) against Jorge M. Blanco-Palma, Ajit Mohan, and Prem Mohan for damages arising from the same accident.

 

On December 9, 2022, defendant Jorge M. Blanco-Palma (“Palma”) moves to dismiss Mendoza’s action pursuant to CCP §§ 583.210, 583.250.  Mendoza opposes the motion, and Palma filed a reply. 

 

This matter was originally heard on January 26, 2023.  Two days prior to the hearing, Mendoza filed a sur-reply to Palma’s reply without obtaining leave of court to file such.[1]  At the January 26, 2023 hearing, the matter was continued to March 1, 2023.  Mendoza and Palma were to file supplemental briefs that were to be limited to the issue of Emergency Rule 10 and whether that argument had been waived.  (Min. Order, Jan. 26, 2023.) 

 

In her supplemental opposition, Mendoza does not address Emergency Rule 10.  Instead, Mendoza argues that Palma made a general appearance in this action by attending the Trial Setting Conference on February 4, 2021, after the cases were consolidated.  Further, Mendoza contends that Emergency Rule 9 extended the dismissal statute by 180 days because it stopped the running of the statute of limitations in this mater from April 6, 2020 to October 1, 2020.

 

In his supplemental reply, Palma contends that Mendoza’s supplemental opposition should be stricken because Mendoza failed to limit her brief to the specific issue of Emergency Rule 10 as ordered by the Court.  Palma further asserts that the Emergency Rules pertaining to Covid-19 are inapplicable because this action was filed long before the Emergency Rules were enacted.

 

As Palma asserts, the matter was continued specifically for the parties to address Emergency Rule 10.  While the Court has discretion to disregard Mendoza’s supplemental opposition for failing to comply with the instructions, given the drastic remedy being sought by Palma’s motion, the Court will consider the supplemental opposition. 

 

However, the motion will be continued to allow Palma to address Mendoza’s arguments concerning the Trial Setting Conference on February 4, 2021.  Palma’s response is limited to no more than three pages to address.  No further briefing is permitted.  The Court notes that Mendoza has repeatedly filed improper briefs without permission.  Mendoza’s counsel is put on notice that any further improperly filed briefs will be stricken and will not be considered. 

 

The hearing on the motion is continued to ______________ at 1:30 p.m. in this Department.  Palma’s response is due at least five court days before the hearing. 

 

Palma is ordered to give notice. 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

 

Dated this 1st day of March 2023

 

 

 

 

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court

 



[1] The sur-reply seemingly reiterates the same arguments made in Plaintiff’s opposition.