Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV34493, Date: 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling



 
 
 
 
 

Case Number: 20STCV34493    Hearing Date: October 6, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

NICHOLAS JACKSON,

                        Plaintiff(s),

            vs.

 

JUDSON GREENE, ET AL.,

 

                        Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO: 20STCV34493

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

October 6, 2022

 

Plaintiff, Nicholas Jackson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Judson Greene (“Greene”) and EAN Holdings, LLC (“EAN”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle vs. pedestrian accident.  Plaintiff has filed an Amendment to Complaint naming Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles, LLC (“Enterprise”) as Doe 1.  The complaint alleges a single cause of action for motor vehicle negligence. 

 

Enterprise now moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication, against Plaintiff.  This matter was last heard on August 8, 2022, where it was noted that Enterprise’s moving papers, while not objected to by Plaintiff, were rife with typographical errors, and that the parties’ separate statement did not address all material facts argued in their pleadings.  The hearing on the motion was continued for the parties to correct the pleadings filed with the motion.[1]  Following the hearing, Enterprise filed an amended separate statement, declarations and request for judicial notice.  Plaintiff filed an amended opposition and response to Enterprise’s amended separate statement, and Enterprise filed a reply to Plaintiff’s amended opposition.[2] 

 

This matter was set for hearing on October 5, 2022.  However, the motion was continued to October 6, 2022, with moving party, Enterprise, being ordered to give notice of the hearing date.  (Min. Order Sept. 28, 2022.)  As of October 3, 2022, no such notice showing proof of service on Plaintiff has been received by the Court. 

 

The Court wishes to ensure that Plaintiff has proper notice of the hearing.  Unless Defendant files a proof of service showing that notice of the new hearing date was given to Plaintiff or Plaintiff appears on October 5, 2022, and consents to going forward on that date, the hearing on the motion will be continued to October 10, 2022.  If Defendant fails to file notice of the continuance with proof of service on Plaintiff, the motion will be taken off calendar. 


[1] Enterprise and Plaintiff were both present at the August 8, 2022 hearing and submitted to the Court’s order. 

[2] Enterprise’s memorandum of points and authorities in its reply begins with page number 3 and ends with page 16.  This is in violation of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(d), which states that a reply memorandum may not exceed 10 pages.  No leave of court was granted to file a reply memorandum longer than 10 pages, and so the Court will only consider page numbers 3 to 13 of the reply.