Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV41192, Date: 2023-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV41192    Hearing Date: February 8, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Kristen Osegueda (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Ontrac, California Overnight, Inc., Express Messenger Systems, Inc., and Felix Ortega Dominguez (“Dominguez”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident vs bicycle accident.  Plaintiff has filed an amendment to complaint naming Zion Delivery Service, Inc. (“Zion”) as Doe 1. 

As relevant to this proceeding, on May 5, 2022, defense counsel for Zion filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint on behalf of Dominguez. 

At this time, Plaintiff moves to compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents (“RPDs”), all set one, against Dominguez.  Plaintiff propounded the discovery on Dominguez, through defense counsel, on May 23, 2022, but Dominguez has not served responses to the discovery.  Plaintiff, thus, seeks an order compelling Dominguez to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions. 

            Defense counsel for Zion filed a declaration in opposition to the instant motions.  Defense counsel represents that it mistakenly filed an answer on Dominguez’s behalf, and that defense counsel is currently seeking to withdraw the answer, a fact of which Plaintiff’s counsel is aware.  Counsel provides that it has filed a motion to withdraw the mistakenly filed answer and set it for hearing on February 16, 2023, about one week after this hearing.  Defense counsel states it attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding continuing these motions to avoid prejudice to Dominguez, but Plaintiff’s counsel refused.  Defense counsel requests that the hearing on the motions be continued to allow the motion to withdraw the answer to be heard. 

            Any reply was due on or before January 31, 2023.  To date, Plaintiff has not filed a reply.  Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel does not dispute defense counsel's representations that Plaintiff’s counsel is aware that defense counsel is seeking to withdraw the answer it mistakenly filed on Dominguez’s behalf.   

            If the answer filed on behalf of Dominguez is ordered stricken because defense counsel did not have authority to file it, this would mean that the discovery propounded on defense counsel would not be effective to compel a response against Dominguez.  Therefore, there is good cause to continue the hearing date on Plaintiff’s motions to compel.

            The hearing date on Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs is continued for approximately 30 days to _______________ at 1:30 p.m. in this Department. 

Plaintiff 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 8^th day of February 2023