Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV36105, Date: 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV36105    Hearing Date: August 12, 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

Plaintiff Anna Aruguette sued defendants Agustin Valladares and Garda CL West, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) based on a motor vehicle collision.  Defendants move to continue trial, which is currently set for September 16, 2022, to January 13, 2023, with all pre-trial motion and discovery cutoffs to be based on the new trial date.  Plaintiff has 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 Plaintiff. The proof of service states the declarant “served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above and providing them to a professional messenger service. (A proof of service executed by the messenger will be filed in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure.)”  (See July 21, 2022 Proof of Service.) 

As Defendants would appear to acknowledge, 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 Plaintiff has afforded Deponent 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.