Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 21CMCV00201, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling
INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:
1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.
2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and
3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.
If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on.
TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u
Case Number: 21CMCV00201 Hearing Date: December 15, 2022 Dept: A
21CMCV00201
David Jones v. Michelle Rillera
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
The complaint alleges that
Plaintiff is married to Defendant’s sister. Defendant allegedly called
Plaintiff’s mother-in-law and made wrongful and untruthful remarks about
Plaintiff’s character and veracity related to a family matter that resulted in
Plaintiff’s mother-in-law asking Plaintiff to leave her residence and to never
visit her residence again. The complaint alleges one cause of action for
intentional tort (defamation).
Plaintiff filed this motion on
August 25, 2022, set for hearing on November 3, 2022. Plaintiff gave notice to Defendant,
in pro per, by mail on September 13, 2022. By minute order dated October 18,
2022, the court continued the hearing to November 14, 2022. The court’s docket
does not reflect what occurred on that date.
On December 5, 2022, Plaintiff
filed a notice of a motion to compel discovery. The pleading is not supported
by a memorandum of authorities, a discussion of the discovery propounded, or
Defendant’s failure to respond. If a party fails to file a memorandum, “the
court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion
or special demurrer is not meritorious and cause for its denial … ." CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.1113
subd. (a). Moreover, the proof of service indicates that a Notice of Status
Conference and not a discovery motion was served on Defendant, in pro per, on
November 15, 2022, although she is currently represented by counsel.
Regardless, notice of the motion
filed on August 25, 2022, was served on Defendant, although her counsel,
Jacobsen & Gorrie, substituted in on September 3, 2021. Therefore, the
notice of the motion is defective. To the extent that the December 5 notice purported
to give notice of the continued hearing date for the discovery motion, it is
also defective since it was served on Defendant and not her defense counsel,
and Plaintiff did not serve the entire motion.
Accordingly, the motion is taken
off calendar as it was improperly noticed.