Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 23STCV12228, Date: 2024-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12228    Hearing Date: April 11, 2024    Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein.  Counsel must contact the staff in Department 76 to inform the Court whether they wish to submit on the tentative, or to argue the matter.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.

Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, the Court may adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant has defamed Plaintiff by making false statements to Plaintiff’s relatives to encourage them to file a lawsuit against him regarding misappropriation/mismanagement of trust assets. 

Plaintiff bring a motion to lift the stay on discovery pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code, § 425.16(g).

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Leticia Roa Saguanpong’s SLAPP motion scheduled to be heard on May 6, 2024 is ADVANCED TO THIS DATE AND DENIED. The automatic discovery stay imposed by Civ. Proc. Code, § 426.16(g) is no longer in effect.

As such, the motion to lift the stay of discovery is MOOT, and therefore taken OFF-CALENDAR.

ANALYSIS

Motion To Lift Discovery Stay

Plaintiff Lance Frederick Mann, individually and as Trustee of The Milton and Rae Mann Intervivos Trust Agreement, dated April 14, 1992’s motion to lift the stay on discovery pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code, § 425.16(g) is placed OFF-CALENDAR.

Procedurally, this motion was only served on 8 days’ notice, not the 16 court days’ notice, plus 2 court days for electronic service, required by Civ. Proc. Code, § 1005(b) and § 1010.6(a)(3)(B). Moreover, Defendant in pro per was only served electronically, but there is no indication Defendant agreed to accept electronic service. Unrepresented persons are exempt from any mandatory electronic filing imposed pursuant to this subdivision.” (Civ. Proc. Code § 1010.6(f)(2).)

In this regard, Defendant’s opposition which was filed only three days prior to the hearing is also untimely, but the motion itself was untimely. As noted below, however, all of this is neither here nor there.

In determining whether to lift the stay on discovery, “[t]he court should also consider the plaintiff’s need for discovery in the context of the issues raised in the SLAPP motion.” (The Garment Workers Center v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1162.) In this regard, substantively, the Court has examined Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion and indicates that it will be denied because it far exceeds the 15-page limit set forth in Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1113(d). Indeed, the SLAPP motion is 31 pages, and Defendant in pro per did not obtain permission to file a memorandum of points and authorities which is more than double the page limit. Defendant wasted most of the brief discussing irrelevant matters and did not address facts pertaining to the first prong of the SLAPP analysis—as to which a moving Defendant bears the burden[1]—until Page 16 of the brief.

The Court showed lenience by allowing Defendant to file a late SLAPP motion, but the Court will not excuse Defendant’s egregious violation of the page limit. Pro per litigants are not entitled to more favorable or lenient treatment than other litigants or attorneys when it comes to adherence to the California Rules of Court or Code of Civil Procedure.  (See Harding v. Collazo (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1044, 1056; Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284.).

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s SLAPP motion scheduled to be heard on May 6, 2024 is ADVANCED TO THIS DATE AND DENIED. The automatic discovery stay imposed by Civ. Proc. Code, § 426.16(g) is no longer in effect.

As such, the motion to lift the stay of discovery is MOOT, and therefore taken OFF-CALENDAR.