Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV20089, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20089    Hearing Date: August 28, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

MICHELL BAILEY, ET AL., 

Plaintiff(s), 

vs. 

 

DANIEL BARELA, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 22STCV20089 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m. 

August 28, 2023 

 

Plaintiff Michell Bailey (“Plaintiff Bailey”) propounded set one of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, request for production (“RPDs”), and request for admissions (“RFAs”) on Defendant Estate of Joseph Felix (“Felix Estate”) on November 28, 2022. After two extensions, Felix Estate served unverified responses to Plaintiff Bailey’s propounded discovery. Plaintiff’s counsel avers that, as of the date of the filing of the instant motion, Plaintiff’s counsel has not received verifications after granting a total of five extensions. Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling Felix Estate to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery. Plaintiff Bailey also requests the RFAs, set one, be deemed admitted against Felix Estate.   

In opposition, counsel for Felix Estate avers that they had responded to Plaintiff’s discovery, but was unable to locate anyone who could verify the responses because no formal estate had been set up for decedent Joseph Felix.  However, counsel for Felix Estate declares signed verifications were served upon Plaintiff’s counsel on August 14, 2023, and that therefore the motions are now moot. The verifications were signed by a representative of the insurer of the Felix Estate.  

Plaintiff’s counsel avers that the motions are not moot because the responses contain objections, with many responses containing objections only. Furthermore, Plaintiff contends that it is uncertain if an insurance carrier may sign verifications on behalf of the Felix Estate under California Probate Code Section 552(a) when there has been no personal representative appointed. 

Based upon the foregoing, the Court wishes to discuss preliminary matters with counsel for both parties at the hearing prior to ruling on the instant motions. Both counsels are ordered to appear at the hearing (remote appearance is permitted) and to be ready to discuss the issues raised. Depending on the results of the discussion, the Court may continue the hearing.  

  

Moving party is ordered to give notice. 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 25th day of August 2023 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court