Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV38046, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV38046    Hearing Date: February 3, 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 Byung Wook Kim (Defendant) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Jonathan D. Chang (Plaintiff) to Form Interrogatories, set one (FROG); Special Interrogatories, set one (SROG); and Requests for Production of Documents, set one (RPD).  In addition, Defendant moves to deem admitted the matters specified in Requests for Admission, set one (RFA).   Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the four motions.  Plaintiff has not filed oppositions to the motions.

Defendant served notice of the motions and the motions on Plaintiff by electronic transmission on November 18, 2022.  Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant.  Self-represented parties must affirmatively consent to electronic service by serving and filing a notice so stating. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(c)(3)(B).)  Absent such affirmative consent, self-represented parties must be served with documents by nonelectronic means.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1010.6, subd. (d)(4), 1011, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.253(b)(2), (3).)

            Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not filed and served a notice affirmatively consenting to electronic service.  Accordingly, Defendant’s service of the notices of motion and motions by electronic transmission on November 18, 2022 is deficient. 

            The Court therefore denies Defendant’s motions as procedurally defective.  Defendant shall provide notice of this Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.