Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 19STCV39494, Date: 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling



 
 
 
 
 


Case Number: 19STCV39494    Hearing Date: February 15, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                               FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

CELEDONIO ALABAT,

                        Plaintiff(s),

            vs.

 

LINDA RIVERO, ET AL.,

 

                        Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO: 19STCV39494

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DEEMING MOTION TO STRIKE MOOT

 

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

February 15, 2023

 

Plaintiff Celedonio Alabat (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Linda Rivero and Israel Rivero for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. 

 

As relevant to this proceeding, on November 18, 2022, Defendant Linda Rivero’s (“Defendant”) motions to compel responses to special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and request for production of documents, all set one, and to deem request for admissions, set one, admitted against Plaintiff were heard.  The parties appeared at the hearing and the motions were found moot because responses had been served before the hearing.  (Min. Order, Nov. 18, 2022.)  Counsel Vania Nemanpour (“Nemanpour”) appeared for Hesam Yazdanpanah, Plaintiff’s counsel.  On November 18, 2022, Defendant filed a Notice of Ruling pertaining to Defendant’s motions to compel and deem admissions admitted.  The notice provided that the motions were deemed moot, and that sanctions were awarded against “Plaintiff’s attorneys of record, Vania Nemanpour, Esq. and Hess Panah, Esq., in the amount of $1,240.00 …”  (Notice of Ruling, filed Nov. 18, 2022.) 

 

Plaintiff, thereafter, filed the instant motion to strike Defendant’s notice of ruling and amending nunc pro tunc the November 18, 2022 minute order.  Defendant opposes the motion.  No reply has been received. 

 

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s notice of ruling does not accurately reflect the Court’s ruling at the November 18, 2022 hearing.  Plaintiff contends that sanctions were ordered against only Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Hesam Yazdanpanah, Esq. (“Yazdanpanah”), and not against Vania Nemanpour (“Nemanpour”).  Plaintiff argues that sanctions should be imposed against defense counsel for defense counsel’s refusal to amend the notice of ruling, and that a nunc pro tunc order should be entered stating the motions are moot. 

 

In opposition, Defendant contends that sanctions were properly awarded in connection with Defendant’s motions heard November 18, 2022, and that the sanctions were imposed against Nemanpour.  Defendant contends that it was Nemanpour’s conduct that warranted sanctions and the intended subject of the sanctions. 

 

To alleviate the confusion raised by the Notice of Ruling, the Court has signed the Minute Order reflecting the events of the November 18, 2022 hearing.  It is now the operative Order on the Motion to Compel and renders Plaintiff’s Motion Moot.  It is noted that in the Notices for the motions heard on November 18, 2022, sanctions were sought against Plaintiff’s “attorney of record, the Law Offices of Hess Panah & Associates", and pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.040, counsel against whom a sanction is sought must be identified in the Notice of Motion,  Thus, references to Plaintiff’s attorney of record in the Order refer to “the Law Offices of Hess Panah & Associates.”    

 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

 

Dated this 15th day of February 2023

 

 

 

 

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court