Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCP00158, Date: 2023-08-22 Tentative Ruling
Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).
Case Number: 23CHCP00158 Hearing Date: January 18, 2024 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 1/18/24
Case #23CHCP00158
PETITION FOR
RELIEF FROM GOVERNMENT CLAIM FILING REQUIREMENTS,
OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE,
FOR ORDER
FINDING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE
Petition filed on 4/10/23.
MOVING PARTY: Petitioner E.A., a minor, by
and through her Guardian ad Litem, J.A.
RESPONDING PARTY : Respondent City of Los Angeles
RULING: The petition is denied.
On 8/22/23, the hearing on the petition was continued to
9/27/23 because there was no evidence that Respondents County of Los Angeles
(County) and City of Los Angeles (City) had been served with notice that the
hearing was scheduled for 8/22/23. (See
8/22/23 Minute Order).
On 9/27/23, the hearing on the petition was continued to
11/2/23 due to issues with the service of the petition and notice of
hearing. (See 9/27/23 Nunc Pro
Tunc Minute Order). Nothing had been
filed between the 9/27/23 hearing date and the 11/2/23 hearing date. Therefore, on 11/2/23, the Court noted that
it would continue the hearing on the petition “one last time to allow
for proper service of same.” (See
11/2/23 Minute Order). The hearing was
then continued to 12/19/23. (emphasis
added) Id.
On 11/21/23, a proof of personal service was filed indicating
that the City was served with the Notice of Ruling and Notice of Hearing on
11/17/23. (See 11/21/23 Proof of
Service – City). On 12/1/23, the Court
served Petitioner’s counsel with a notice and order that the 12/19/23 hearing
date was continued to 1/18/24. (See
12/1/23 Notice of Continuance and Order).
Petitioner’s counsel was also ordered to give notice of the continuance
to all parties and file proof of service of such notice forthwith. Id.
On 12/20/23, Petitioner’s request to dismiss the County was entered.
After three continuance due to issues with notice, Petitioner
has still failed to establish that the petition was properly served and/or that
the City had notice of the 1/18/24 hearing date.
First, the proof of service filed on 11/21/23 only shows
that the City was served with the Notice of Ruling and Notice of Hearing, not
the underlying petition. (See
11/21/23 Proof of Service – City; 11/17/23 Notice of Ruling & Notice of
Hearing – does not have petition attached).
Second, a proof of service has not been filed showing Petitioner served
the City with notice that the 12/19/23 hearing was continued to 1/18/24 as
ordered by the Court on 12/1/23. (See
12/1/23 Notice of Continuance and Order and eCourt generally).
No response to the petition by the City has been filed to
cure the defect in notice. Since this is
the fourth time Petitioner has failed to provide proper notice of the hearing
on this matter, the petition is denied.