Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV07951, Date: 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV07951 Hearing Date: May 3, 2023 Dept: 17
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
DEPARTMENT
17
TENTATIVE RULING
|
HAPPY SMILE, INC.
vs. MAO HIRAI, et al. |
Case
No.: 21STCV07951
Hearing Date: May 3, 2023 |
Defendants’
motion for reconsideration is GRANTED.
On 3/1/2021,
Plaintiff Happy Smile, Inc. filed suit against Miro Hirai, Jose Nunez, and
Oscar Nunez, alleging breach of contract and conversion.
Now,
Defendants Jose and Oscar Nunez (collectively, Defendants) move for reconsideration
of the Court’s ruling granting Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to strike
Defendants’ answers.
The
motion is unopposed.
Discussion
Defendants
argue that the Court should reconsider its ruling granting Plaintiff’s motion
to strike based on the following facts: (1) Defendants’ failure to the oppose
the motion to strike was the result of attorney error; and (2) Plaintiff’s
motion was based on the false contention that Defendants had not responded to
discovery.
As
for the first contention, CCP section 473(b) provides for mandatory relief from
dismissal or default where an attorney attests that it was a result of his or
her own mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. Here, Defendants’ counsel
included such a declaration, explaining that he failed to oppose the motion to
strike Defendants’ answers because he “mistakenly overlooked and forgot that
there was a Plaintiff’s motion on calendar. I was primarily focused on a
criminal defense felony trial matter along with other aspects of this case. For
inexplicable reasons these were my thoughts as defense counsel.” (Karey Decl.,
¶ 15.)
As
for the second contention, Defendants submitted evidence to show that they have
repeatedly propounded discovery responses on Plaintiffs. More specifically,
Defendants submitted a declaration from counsel explaining that Defendants
initially responded to Plaintiffs’ discovery on 12/22/2020. Then, Defendants
resent those responses per Court instruction on 7/14/2022. Then, Defendants
again resent discovery on 12/8/2022. As part of the motion, Defendants attached
their discovery responses. While the Court does not evaluate the adequacy of
these responses, it goes without saying that a motion to compel further, not a
motion to strike, is the correct mechanism for challenging deficient discovery
responses. Plaintiff did not oppose this motion to dispute Defendants’
contention that these discovery responses were provided as claimed.
In
light of Defendants’ explanation for their failure to oppose Plaintiff’s motion
to strike, and their new evidence that they did, in fact, respond to discovery,
the Court finds it appropriate to reconsider its previous ruling striking
Defendants’ answers.
Based
on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is granted.
It is so
ordered.
Dated: May
, 2023
Hon. Jon R.
Takasugi
Judge of the
Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must
send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org
by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court
website at www.lacourt.org. If a party submits
on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must
identify the party submitting on the tentative.
If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this
tentative as the final order. If the department
does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the
tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed
off calendar.
Due to Covid-19, the court is
strongly discouraging in-person appearances. Parties, counsel, and court reporters present
are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry
if admission could create a public health risk.
The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A.
Court Connect. For more information,
please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult
times is appreciated.