Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV35372, Date: 2023-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV35372    Hearing Date: February 1, 2023    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

Defendant Arvind Deva (Defendant) moves to continue the trial, and all trial-related dates, which is currently set for March 6, 2023, to any date in June or July 2023, or any date thereafter which is available on the court calendar for trial.  The motion is unopposed.    

            Preliminarily, the Court notes on August 9, 2021, the Court ordered the following cases, 19STCV35372 and 19STCV39516, consolidated for all purposes.  (August 9, 2021 Minute Order.)  Accordingly, all parties in both cases 19STCV35372 and 19STCV39516 should have been served the Notice of Motion and Motion to Continue Trial and Related Dates.  Here the proof of service only indicates service on Plaintiff Elma Pelsang’s attorneys in case 19STCV35372.  However, Defendant has not advanced proofs of service indicating service of the instant motion on Elma Pelsang’s attorneys as Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant in case 19STCV39516, as well as Plaintiff Catherine Oliva Catalan. 

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