Judge Blaine K. Bowman, Case 37-2022-00029561-CU-PA-NC 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Blaine K. Bowman, Case: 37-2022-00029561-CU-PA-NC, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 26, 2023

10/27/2023 10:00:00 AM N-31 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Blaine K. Bowman

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited PI/PD/WD - Auto Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2022-00029561-CU-PA-NC DELUCA VS GONZALES [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Strike, 08/03/2023

The hearing on this matter is continued to Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department N-31. The opposition brief submitted by plaintiff Amy DeLuca (Plaintiff) is in violation of California Rule of Court, rule 2.108, which requires that the lines of a brief be spaced by at least one and one-half spacing. Though some of Plaintiff's briefing appears to comply with this rule, significant portions of her opposition brief appear to be single-spaced. Line spacing requirements, combined with page limitations, are the primary way for a court to control overall workflow and maintain judicial efficiency, and the violation of these rules, particularly when done with some consistency throughout an entire brief (see pages 4-14 of the Opposition brief) impinges upon the overall workflow of the Court. As such, the Court declines to consider the Opposition brief as currently filed due to being in violation of California Rule of Court, rule 2.108.

However, in order to prevent an injustice and to ensure that Plaintiff has an opportunity to be heard in terms of opposing the motion, the Court continues the hearing on this matter so that Plaintiff can re-write, reformat, and revise as necessary and submit a new opposition brief that is in compliance with the spacing requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 2.108. In exercising this discretion, the Court is mindful that this is not the first time Plaintiff's filings have failed to comply with the spacing requirements. (See ROA 67, p. 3:12-4:5.) Notably, the motion in that sample also went beyond the 15-page limit applicable to law and motion briefing. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d).) While the Court has exercised discretion in the past to overlook these procedural defects, their frequency and consistency is increasing, and, as such, the Court finds it necessary to require compliance before reviewing papers submitted by Plaintiff.

Given the continued hearing date, Plaintiff shall be permitted an opportunity to file and submit a new opposition brief, and defendant Lindsay Gonzales shall be permitted an opportunity to file and submit a new reply brief to address the arguments raised in said new opposition brief. The deadline for such filing and submission shall be based off of the continued deadline and per code. (See Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(c).) Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3004589