Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 22STCP01300, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed. Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1005(b).

On April 13, 2022, Petitioner Metlife Home and Auto (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Assignment of Miscellaneous Court Number in Uninsured Motorist Arbitration Matter (the “Petition”) against Respondent Aquilina Oloresisimo (“Respondent”). The Petition indicates that this is an uninsured motorist arbitration action and Petitioner has been unsuccessful in obtaining written discovery responses from Respondent. Petitioner requested “the issuance of a miscellaneous court number, so that it could file . . . motions to compel written discovery responses.” (Petition at p. 4:15-17.)

Also, on April 13, 2022, this action was assigned for all purposes to the Honorable Holly J. Fujie sitting in Department 56 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

On May 11, 2022, Petitioner filed and served a Notice of Filing of Petition for Miscellaneous Case Number and Setting of Status Conference.

On July 13, 2022, the Court held a Status Conference and the Court indicated that “[t]he parties are trying to resolve pending issues.” (07/13/22 Minute Order.) The Court set a Non-Appearance Case Review re: Dismissal for October 14, 2022. (07/13/22 Minute Order.) The Court’s minute order provides that “[i]f a dismissal is not filed, Plaintiff is to file a declaration as to why the case should not be dismissed. The declaration is to be filed by October 7, 2022. If the declaration is not filed the case will be dismissed.” (07/13/22 Minute Order.)

On October 14, 2022, the Court held a Non-Appearance Case Review re: Dismissal. The declaration as to why the case should not be dismissed was not filed by Petitioner. (10/14/22 Minute Order.) The Court therefore ordered the Petition, which was filed on April 13, 2022, to be dismissed without prejudice. (10/14/22 Minute Order.)

On January 9, 2024, Petitioner filed and served a Petition for Re-Assignment of Court Case Number/Re-Opening of Case Number in Uninsured Motorist Arbitration Matter (the “2d Petition”).

On January 29, 2024, Petitioner filed and served the instant unopposed Motion to Compel Respondent’s Deposition and Request for Sanctions (the “Motion”). Petitioner seeks an order compelling Respondent to attend, to produce documents, and to testify at deposition. Petitioner also seeks monetary sanctions against Respondent and her counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,500.00.

As of May 22, 2024, the Motion is unopposed. Any opposition to the Motion was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Due to the lack of opposition, an inference is created that the Motion is meritorious. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Although the Motion is unopposed, the Court cannot grant the Motion. The Court has not yet made any determination as to whether to reassign the court case number or reopen the case number as is requested in the 2d Petition. The Court dismissed this action on October 14, 2022 due to the failure of Petitioner to file a declaration as to why this case should not be dismissed.

Petitioner may move to set aside or vacate the Court’s October 14, 2022 order of dismissal. (Peltier v. McCloud River R.R. Co. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1809, 1825.) Until Petitioner moves to set aside the dismissal, or the Court otherwise deems the 2d Petition as the operative petition in this action, the Court cannot rule on any discovery motions.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court