Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24STCV18815, Date: 2025-01-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV18815 Hearing Date: January 9, 2025 Dept: 40
24STCV18815
Rita Rodriguez v. Eduardo Romero, et al.
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
This
action, filed on July 30, 2024, alleges unidentified claims against nine
individuals and an entity called “Charming Bunny,” for restoration of custody
of Plaintiff’s daughter, for ownership of “Charming Bunny”, and for damages
sustained as a result of stalking, harassment, mental distress, emotional
distress, spiritual distress, and bullying allegedly perpetrated upon
Plaintiff’s children, among other assorted claims and allegations.
While
Plaintiff requests an order for continuance, the substance of Plaintiff’s
motion seeks to advance the Case Management Conference (“CMC”) presently set
for April 23, 2025, to an earlier date
no later than January 30, 2025, because Plaintiff fears that Defendant
(unidentified) will use this extra time
to bribe witnesses and destroy evidence.
Plaintiff
timely served the motion on all named but not served Defendants. No opposition
has been filed.
Plaintiff’s
motion is not supported by any law or facts and is DENIED.
Plaintiff
cites California Rules of Court, rule 3.727 which articulates the subjects to
be considered at a CMC hearing. In relevant part, a CMC is scheduled in order
for the parties to address whether all named parties have been served,
appeared, or have been dismissed, among other things. (CA
Rules of Court, Rule 3.727.)
A
CMC has not been scheduled in this matter ostensibly because Plaintiff has not
served any of the named Defendants. Rather the case is scheduled for an Order
to Show Cause for April 23, 2025, for Plaintiff to demonstrate why sanctions
should not be imposed against Plaintiff for Plaintiff’s failure to serve the 10
defendants named in Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff is required to serve the
complaint “on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants
must be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint.”
(CA Rules
of Court, Rule 3.110 subd. (b).) As of this writing, Plaintiff
has not served any named defendant after five months since the commencement of
this action.
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Plaintiff is ordered to appear at the hearing set
for April 3, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. to show cause why sanctions should not be
imposed for Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve all named defendants as
required by Rule 3.110. In the interim, Plaintiff is ordered to complete
service of the summons and complaint on all named Defendants prior to that date.
In the alternative, Plaintiff can
dismiss any named defendants not served.