Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 18STCV07464, Date: 2022-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV07464    Hearing Date: September 9, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiffs Marmena Shenouda and Maryohana Shenouda (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued defendants Joana Vanezza Hernandez, Fresh Lunches, Inc., and Razzaghi Homayoun (collectively, “Defendants”) based on a motor vehicle collision.  Defendants move to continue trial, which is currently set for December 12, 2022, to May 15, 2023, with all pre-trial motion and discovery cutoffs to be based on the new trial date.  Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition to the motion.

The Court notes Defendants’ proof of service filed in connection with the motion does not establish the date and manner of service upon Plaintiffs. The proof of service states the declarant “emailed the documents identified above to a courier service, First Legal, to be delivered by personal service to the parties at the addresses listed below.”  (See August 18, 2022 Proof of Service.) 

A declaration signed by an individual who gave the papers to a third-party messenger or who “caused” the delivery is hearsay and thus insufficient to establish service. The Court is therefore unable to determine whether Defendants have afforded Plaintiffs adequate notice of the motion per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

Accordingly, the Court denies the motion as procedurally defective.  Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of the same.