Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV29067, Date: 2022-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV29067    Hearing Date: September 26, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Ashley Poe (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Jose Mejahuezo (“Defendant”) for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident.   

At this time, Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings.  Defendant avers that prior to filing the complaint in this action, Plaintiff settled the claims at issue in this action with this assistance of different counsel.  Defendant asserts Plaintiff signed and agreed to a release of any and all claims relating to the subject August 3, 2018, accident alleged in the complaint.  Defendant contends that after the agreement was signed, the Law Offices of D. Hess Panah & Assocaites, whom Defendant asserts represented Plaintiff before she retained the counsel that assisted her with the release, filed this action on behalf of Plaintiff.  Defendant contends that the signed release by Plaintiff bars this legal action against Defendant. 

However, the Court notes that Defendant filed and electronically served this motion on September 1, 2022, which was only 15 court days before the hearing.  “Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing.”  (CCP § 1005(b).)  Additionally, “Any period of notice, or any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after the service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended after service by electronic means by two court days.”  (CCP § 1010.6(a)(4)(B).)  Accordingly, Plaintiff was required to file and serve the moving papers by August 29, 2022.  (CCP §§ 1005(b), 1010.6(a)(4)(B).)  Defendant, thus, failed to give sufficient notice of the motion to Plaintiff.

Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice to Defendant re-filing the motion after complying with all applicable statutes and giving proper notice of the moving papers. 

The Court notes that while Defendant’s motion is procedurally, defective, Plaintiff does not oppose the motion or otherwise dispute Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff previously signed and agreed to release Defendant from the claims alleged in the complaint.  If Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel pursues the claims against Defendant with knowledge that the claims are barred, the Court will be inclined to consider a request for sanctions per CCP §128.5, et seq., if Defendants were to make a proper motion for same. 

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 26^th day of September 2022