Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 20STCV43148, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

 PLEASE NOTE:    

The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.  

Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at SSCdept30@LACourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit. 

Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.  

If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email. 

If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar. 

Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present. 

Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.     

Case Number: 20STCV43148    Hearing Date: August 9, 2023    Dept: 30

#28
SAUL ENRIQUE PACHECO vs DONOVAN PULLEN, et al.
20STCV43148
Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Ruling: Denied. Moving party to give notice.

Rationale:  The Court denies Defendant's motion on procedural grounds. First, the Court notes that the instant motion for terminating sanctions was served on Plaintiff in pro per, electronically. (Motion, p. 78.) Second, the Court notes the operative third-amended deposition notice, noticing Plaintiff’s deposition after the Court’s May 17, 2023 order compelling Plaintiff to appear for deposition, was also served on Plaintiff in pro per, electronically. (Eldridge Decl., ¶ 19; Exhibit I.)

However, self-represented parties must affirmatively consent to electronic service by filing a notice of consent. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(c)(3)(B).) Absent such affirmative consent, self-represented parties must be served with documents by nonelectronic means. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1010.6, subd. (d)(4), 1011, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.253(b)(2), (3).) Here, Defendant fails to advance evidence that Plaintiff has affirmatively consented to electronic service.