Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00051823-CU-OR-CTL, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 06, 2024

06/07/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other Real Property Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00051823-CU-OR-CTL CLARK VS GEORGEE [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiffs Robert and Valerie Clark's motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiffs' motion was untimely and improperly served.

First, the motion is untimely. Plaintiffs served their motion by electronic service on May 15, 2024. (ROA #55, p. 2.) The motion was noticed for a hearing on June 7, 2024. (ROA #49, p. 1.) The last day to serve the motion is calculated by 'counting backward from the hearing date, excluding the day of the hearing as provided by Section 12.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 12c, subd. (a).) Counting 16 court days backwards from the June 7, 2024 hearing date results in a date of May 15, 2024.

Had Plaintiffs served their moving papers via personal service, their motion filed on May 15, 2024 would have been timely. But because Defendants used electronic service, the prescribed 16-court-day notice period 'shall be extended after service by electronic means by two court days . . . .' (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).) Thus, for a motion with a noticed hearing date of June 7, 2024 to be timely served by electronic means, it needed to be served no later than May 13, 2024. By filing and serving their motion by electronic service on May 15, 2024, Plaintiffs provided less than the statutorily required notice period, rendering their motion untimely.

Second, the use of electronic service on Defendants Shaheen and Christina Georgee, who are now unrepresented by counsel, was improper. Absent from the court record is any indication either Defendant expressly consented to electronic service in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions or Rules of Court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c)(3); CRC 2.251, subd. (b).) So long as Defendants remain unrepresented by counsel, and unless or until Defendants provide express consent to accept electronic service, Plaintiffs cannot utilize that method of service on them.

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3106604  29