Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV35196, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35196    Hearing Date: January 19, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Juliet Ansumana (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Rochelle Sterling (“Defendant”), as Trustee of the Sterling Family Trust and dba Beverly Hills Properties, for injuries Plaintiff allegedly sustained as a result of an incident that occurred in Defendant’s elevator located at 120 South Reno Street in Los Angeles, California, on December 17, 2019. 

At this time, Defendant moves for an order imposing issue and evidentiary sanctions against Plaintiff for Plaintiff violation of the Court’s November 2, 2022 compelling Plaintiff to serve full and complete responses to Defendant’s special interrogatories and request for production of documents.  Defendant seeks an order prohibiting Plaintiff from introducing evidence or testimony claiming that her damages in this matter stem from anything other than Plaintiff’s prior car accident that occurred in October 2018.  Alternatively, Defendant seeks an order again requiring Plaintiff to serve full responses to the subject special interrogatories and request for production of documents, and an order imposing monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel. 

On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a late opposition, only two court days before this hearing.  Plaintiff’s counsel submits a declaration stating that Plaintiff’s counsel left to travel to Nigeria on November 15, 2022, to visit his family, and that his laptop failed during his trip.  Plaintiff’s counsel states that he did not review Defendant’s motion until January 9, 2023, after the time for any opposition was due.  To date, no reply has been received. 

Given the severity of the sanctions being requested by Defendant, and in light of Plaintiff’s counsel’s representations that he was out of the country and unaware of the instant motion until January 2023, the Court will continue the hearing on this matter to ensure that Defendant has time to file a reply. Plaintiff’s counsel is put on express notice that failure to timely file papers in the future may result in the Court disregarding them. 

The hearing on the motion is continued to ______________ at 1:30 p.m. in this Department.  If the above date is not convenient Defendant, Defendant must use the online reservation system to promptly continue the hearing on the motion.  Any reply by Defendant is due at least five court days before the continued hearing date.  No other briefing is permitted.

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 19^th day of January 2023