Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Young v. Gunlei Corporation, Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING

William Young and Jennifer Young’s Motion for Reconsideration is CONTINUED to October 5, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. in Department N16.

The Proof of Service indicates the instant 134-page Motion for Reconsideration was served by “James” who “faxed a true copy [of the moving papers] to the address listed below”:

          Jacob I. Mojarro

          Fax: 213-623-6554

(ROA No. 260.)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(e) and California Rules of Court rule 2.306(a), service by facsimile/fax is “permitted only where the parties agree and a written confirmation of that agreement is made.” Additionally, a proof of service by fax requires: (1) the date and sending fax machine telephone number; (2) the name and fax machine telephone number of the person served; (3) a statement that the document was sent by fax transmission and that the transmission was reported as complete and without error; and (4) a copy of the transmission report attached to the proof of service. Because the proof of service did not conform to all of these provisions, service of the motion papers by fax was ineffective. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 2.306(h)(5).)

To the extent the filed Proof of Service indicates the moving papers were served by mail, all of the methods for proof of service by mail discussed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a require, among other things, the name and address of the person served as shown on the envelope. The filed proof of service does not sufficiently comply with the requirements of section 1013a.

The Youngs are ordered to properly serve the required parties and to comply with the applicable rules and procedures for service and for filing proof of service.

Moving parties to give notice.