Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV25565, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25565    Hearing Date: January 26, 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

Plaintiff Jaclyn Gutierrez, individually, and as Successor-in-Interest and Personal Representative of the Estate of Christopher Pearson, Decedent (Plaintiff) sued Defendants Avalonbay Communities, Inc.; ASN Woodland Hills East, LLC; Universal Protection Service, LP; and Allied Universal Executive Protection and Intelligence Services, INC. (collectively, Defendants) based on the death of Plaintiff’s son allegedly caused by an attack by an unknown assailant at an apartment complex.  Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (FAC).  Additionally, Defendant moves to strike portions of the FAC.  Plaintiff opposes the demurrer and motion to strike. 

            Preliminarily, the Court notes that Plaintiff did not file her oppositions until January 23, 2023, and Defendant has not filed replies.  Plaintiff explains the reason for the untimeliness of her motions is attorney inadvertence: Plaintiff’s Counsel and Counsel’s assistant miscommunicated about the pending proceedings in light of a prior motion to strike and demurrer that were filed challenging a previous version of the complaint.  (Declaration of April Ramirez, ¶ 14.)  Counsel’s assistant believed that no opposition was necessary in light of the new complaint, and the opposition deadline was not properly calendared.  (Ibid.)  The issue was not caught until a notice of non-opposition was filed to which Plaintiff responded by preparing and filing oppositions.  (Id. at ¶¶ 13, 15.)

Accordingly, the Court will continue the hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike to February 8, 2023 at 1:30 PM in Department 32 to allow Defendants time to reply to Plaintiff’s oppositions.  Defendants shall file and serve their replies, if any, on or before February 1, 2023. 

Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.