Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 24SMCV00423, Date: 2024-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00423    Hearing Date: August 7, 2024    Dept: I

The application is DENIED.  The court will allow plaintiff, however, by oral motion to withdraw the Motion to Assign, thereby taking it off calendar for 8/14/24 and potentially resolving the concern over the motion for sanctions.  The court notes that the issue whether Paul Hastings accepted service on behalf of all six defendants or only three will need to be adjudicated eventually.  But it need not be adjudicated on 8/14/24.  So what is on for that date is the motion to quash, which the court interprets as more in the nature of an evidentiary objection to the Ran declaration, and the motion to stay.

The court is aware of the potential conflict.  However, the hearing on August 14, 2024, is not an evidentiary hearing.  Plaintiff need not be in court personally.  That said, if plaintiff is actually going to be testifying in another court or before another body on that date, plaintiff needs to file a declaration with the appropriate proof.  Right now, the court has a face page involving a matter pending in the DC Circuit.  That is the matter in which defendants here are challenging the constitutionality of the recently-enacted law that requires sale of TikTok to an American owner or bans its use in the US.  Of course, this court takes no position on the constitutionality of that law.  The point is that those appellate proceedings do not preclude the motions currently on calendar.  The court also has a notice of related case in the Labor Commissioner’s office.  But that related case does not really have any bearing on this motion.  The court is also aware of a notice of related case filed in the federal district court for the District of Columbia, but that has no effect on the instant motion.  None of those show that plaintiff needs to be elsewhere on August 14, 2024.

Accordingly, there is no reason to postpone the hearing.  Therefore, the application is DENIED.

The court is in receipt of defendant’s opposition, but the court has not yet reviewed it.  If defendants would like to postpone the ex parte hearing to allow the court to review the papers, the court will do so, but the court doubts it is necessary.