Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19SMCV01867, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV01867    Hearing Date: April 5, 2023    Dept: 207

Background

Plaintiff Villa Erripa, LLC (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against Defendants Walter Adrian and Pamela Estelle Rumph (“Defendants”) to recover unpaid rent allegedly owed to Plaintiff. This action was previously dismissed at the joint request of the parties pursuant to a settlement agreement. As part of this settlement, Defendants were required to make monthly payments to Plaintiff or face entry of a stipulated judgment against them. Plaintiff now moves the Court to vacate the dismissal of this action and enter judgment against Defendants, claiming they have failed to make the monthly payments required by the parties’ agreement.

Analysis

Plaintiff’s motion originally came on for hearing before the Court on March 15. At that time the Court noted the parties’ stipulation required Plaintiff to provide notice of this motion to Defendant’s counsel as well as Defendants themselves. As the proof of service attached to Plaintiff’s motion showed service on Defendant’s counsel but not Defendants, the Court continued the hearing on this matter to April 5, and directed Plaintiff to serve Defendants with the motion.

Plaintiff subsequently filed a Declaration of Proof of Service indicating Defendants had been served electronically and by mail on March 16. On March 31, Defendant Pamela Rumph filed a substitution of attorney form, filed by an opposition to the instant motion on March 22. In her opposition, Ms. Rumph argues she has been prejudiced in that she had less time than is proscribed by Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) to prepare her opposition to be timely filed on March 22. Accordingly, she asks the Court to continue the hearing to allow her to supplement her opposition. While she does not identify why such continuance is necessary or what additional information she proposes to include in her opposition if granted additional time, the law favors the resolution of disputes on their merits, and the Court finds in the interest of fairness, Ms. Rumph should be given a full and fair opportunity to be heard on this motion.

The Court will continue the hearing on this motion to April 27, 2023. Ms. Rumph may file and serve a supplemental opposition, not to exceed 10 pages, no later than April 14. Plaintiff may file and serve a supplemental reply, not to exceed 10 pages, no later than April 20.

Conclusion

The hearing on this motion is continued to April 27, 2023. Defendants may file and serve a supplemental opposition on later than April 14. Plaintiff may file and serve a supplemental reply no later than April 20.