Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCP02309, Date: 2024-10-22 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.

Case Number: 23STCP02309    Hearing Date: October 22, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff DANIEL LOPEZ (“Petitioner”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Respondent WOMEN’S TWENTIETH CENTURY CLUB OF EAGLE ROCK (“Respondent”)

            The Court has considered the moving and opposition papers.  No reply has been filed.  Any reply was required to have been filed and served at least five court days prior to the hearing.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

BACKGROUND

             This is an appeal from a Labor Commissioner ruling pursuant to Labor Code section 98.2. concerning Petitioner’s wage and hour claims stemming from his period of employment with Respondent as a resident clubhouse caretaker.  On June 19, 2023, the Labor Commissioner issued a written order regarding Petitioner’s claims.  On July 3, 2023, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal.

            On September 30, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant motion entitled “Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings” (the “Motion”).  Respondent filed an opposition on October 9, 2024.

DISCUSSION

            While the Motion is entitled a “Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings,” Petitioner actually seeks leave to add to his exhibit list.  Accordingly, the Court treats the Motion as a motion to expand exhibit list.  (Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 187, 193 (trial courts have the discretion to construe a motion as being different from the label; the nature of a motion is determined by the nature of the relief sought, not by the label attached to it.)  “The principle that a trial court may consider a motion regardless of the label placed on it by a party is consistent with the courts [sic] inherent authority to manage and control its docket.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 128, subd. (a), 187.)”  (Id.)

            Secondly, the Court notes that court records reflect the Motion was filed on September 30, 2024, the 16^th day before the hearing.  Petitioner did not include a proof of service of the Motion, which is required by Court rules.  Respondent, however, filed an opposition asserting that Petitioner filed and served his Motion on October 1, 2024 – 15 court days before the hearing date, and thus the Motion was not properly noticed and must be denied. 

The principles that self-represented litigants are entitled to no greater rights than represented litigants, and trial courts must expeditiously process civil cases, “must yield to the even greater principles of providing in propria persona litigants with meaningful access to the courts and of deciding bona fide civil actions on their merits.”  (Apollo v. Gyaami (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1468, 1487.)

            The Court does not approve or disapprove of the inclusion of exhibits on exhibit lists, although the Court will rule on the admissibility of each exhibit as it is introduced.  Therefore, this Motion is not only inadequately noticed, but even if it were properly noticed it is a proper motion for this Court to consider and it is DENIED.  This ruling does not, however, preclude any party from adding to the exhibit list, although this does not mean that the Court will find any such exhibits to be admissible at the time of the hearing.

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.

Dated this 22nd day of October 2024