Judge: Audra Mori, Case: BC705881, Date: 2022-09-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC705881    Hearing Date: September 2, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Defendants Sebastian Josephraj and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, erroneously sued and served herein as Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, (collectively, “Defendants”) propounded special interrogatories, set six, and request for production of documents (“RPDs”), set eight, on Plaintiff Luis Mejia on December 16, 2021.  Defendants assert that after meeting and conferring, Plaintiff served responses to the discovery on March 21, 2022, but the answers were not verified by Plaintiff; they were instead verified by Plaintiff’s mother, Teresa Mejia (“Teresa”).  Defendants assert that as of the filing of the instant motions to compel, Teresa has not been appointed as Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem, so Teresa’s attempt to verify the discovery responses is a nullity.  Defendants aver they are entitled to properly verified discovery responses, and thus, seek an order compelling Plaintiff to respond to the outstanding interrogatories and RPDs.

            On August 22, 2022, co-plaintiff Teresa filed an opposition to each motion to compel providing that on or about March 2021, Plaintiff Luis Mejia suffered a massive stroke and was diagnosed with aphasia.  Teresa states that Plaintiff is unable to communicate more than five words and has severe cognitive impairment.  Teresa attests that Defendants have been informed of this, and that Teresa has applied to become Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem and is awaiting approval.

            As Teresa argues, a guardian ad litem has the authority and duty, subject to the court's ultimate supervision, to verify responses to discovery on behalf of the real party in interest for whom a guardian ad litem has been appointed.  (Regency Health Services v. Superior Court (Settles) (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1504.)  The Court notes that an application for an order appointing Teresa as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff was signed and filed in this matter on August 23, 2022, and so Teresa has now properly been appointed as Plaintiff’s guardian ad litem.  Defendants’ evidence with the moving papers shows that the responses received by Defendants to the subject discovery have already been verified by Teresa on behalf of Plaintiff.  (Mots. Exh. C.)  As of August 31, 2022, no reply has been received to the opposition, and Defendants do not otherwise argue the verifications remain improper. 

Therefore, the Court finds that the motions to compel are moot in light of the responses served on Defendants prior to the hearing.  (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776.)

The sole remaining issue is whether to impose sanctions.  Defendants do not, however, seek imposition of sanctions, and therefore none are imposed. 

Defendants are 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 2^nd day of September 2022