Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case 20STCV16593 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 20STCV16593, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 74 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept74@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative.

IF THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT RECEIVE AN EMAIL INDICATING THE PARTIES ARE SUBMITTING ON THE TENTATIVE RULING AND THERE ARE NO APPEARANCES AT THE HEARING, THE MOTION WILL BE PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

If you decide not to submit on the tentative ruling, REMOTE APPEARANCES ARE AUTHORIZED AND STRONGLY ENCOURAGED. Please visit the court’s Here for You | Safe for You News Center for the latest orders governing court business. http://www.lacourt.org/newsmedia/ui/HfySfy.aspx

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind: The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record. Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply repeat that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated. If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

Case Number: 20STCV16593 Hearing Date: August 26, 2022 Dept: 74

20STCV16593 GLADYS DEL SOCORRO AMADOR vs 511 RAMPART LLC

Defendant Rampart 36’s Motion for an Order Establishing Admissions Propounded to Martin Quiroz Galvez as Admitted

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Background

On April 30, 2020, Plaintiffs Gladys Del Socorro Amador and 82 other plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants 511 Rampart, LLC and Rampart 36, LLC. The complaint alleged six causes of action: (1) breach of warranty of habitability, (2) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, (3) negligence, (4) breach of contract, (5) nuisance, and (6) unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code §17200 et seq.

On April 26, 2021, 511 Rampart, LLC filed a cross-complaint for indemnity against Rampart 36, LLC.

On May 18, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate this action with Los Angeles Superior Court case 20STCV38355 Felix v. 511 Rampart.

On May 25, 2021, the Court granted a motion to be relieved as counsel and Plaintiff Martin Quiroz Galvez became an unrepresented litigant.

On May 28, 2021, Rampart 36, LLC filed a cross-complaint for equitable indemnity, implied indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief against 511 Rampart, LLC.

Motion

On June 1, 2022, Defendant Rampart 36, LLC filed its motion for an order deeming admitted requests for admission served upon Plaintiff Marin Quiroz Galvez.

The motion is unopposed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(c).)

Discussion

Standard

A party that has not received timely responses to properly served requests for admission may move the Court for an order deeming the matters specified in the requests as admitted. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(b).) The Court shall grant the order unless it “finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (CCP § 2033.280(c).)

Defendant Failed to Demonstrate Proper Service of the Requests at Issue

The declaration of Defendant’s counsel, Jennifer Volcy, states Defendant served requests for admissions, set one upon Plaintiff Marin Quiroz Galvez on March 10, 2022. (Volcy Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. D.) Plaintiff did not obtain an extension and never served responses. (Volcy Decl. ¶ 3.)

On May 25, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff Galvez’s counsel’s motion to be relieved and Plaintiff Galvez became an unrepresented litigant. The Court’s order noted Galvez’s last known address was “511 S. Rampart Boulevard, Apt. 7, Los Angeles, CA 90057.”

The proof of service attached to Defendant’s requests for admissions, set one indicates service was made upon Plaintiff Galvez as follows: Martin Quiroz Galvez, 511 S. Rampart Boulevard, Apt 3 Los Angeles, CA 90057. (Volcy Decl. Ex. D.) Thus, the evidence indicates Defendant used the incorrect apartment number to serve Plaintiff Galvez. Defendant corrected the address in the proof of service for the instant motion. However, the time to respond to request for admissions begins when the requests are properly served. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.250(a).) Absent evidence of proper service, Defendant has not demonstrated Plaintiff Galvez failed to timely respond and the motion cannot be granted.