Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2022-01246802, Date: 2023-06-15 Tentative Ruling

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Nelson Geovanny Andrade filed a (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Gabrielle Lynetta Taylor to provide responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, ROA 48 and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jesus Tolentino Cortez to provide responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, ROA 47.

The Motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to serve the Motions on Plaintiffs’ correct counsel of record.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1005, 1010.6, 1013a, and 1013b and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251.)

The Proofs of Service show that the Motions were served on February 20, 2023 by email on the following individuals:

Michael Kim, Esq.

Avant Law Corporation

2223 Avendia De La Playa

La Jolla, CA 92037

mkim@avantlaw.com

tvanhavermaat@avantlaw.com

eservice@avantlaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs, Sung A. Kim and Chul Hong park

Ryan Redfield, Esq.

Mavredakis Cranert

35 N. Lake Ave., Suite 500

Pasadena, CA 91101

ryan.redfield@zurichna.com

maria.l.becerra@zurichna.com

Attorney for Defendant, Simpson Automotive, Inc.

It appears that these Motions were served on counsel for parties in another case.  According to the operative First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs Jesus Tolentino Cortez and Gabrielle Lynette Taylor are represented by:

Mike Montgomery, Esq.

Montgomery Steele

2151 E. Convention Way 231, Ontario, CA 91764

info@montgomerysteele.com

Stephanie @montgomerysteele.com

According to the Answer to the Cross-Complaint, Cross-Defendant Gabrielle Lynetta Taylor is represented by:

LAW OFFICES OF ROBYN S. HOSMER

330 North Brand Blvd., Suite 900 Glendale, CA 91203-2340

Electronic Address: LosAngelesLegal@allstate.com

Telephone: (310) 965-5111

On April 13, 2023, a Notice of Association was filed, establishing Plaintiffs are also represented by:

Jared R. Pursley, Esq. (SBN: 294729)

PURSLEY LAW FIRM, APC

701 Palomar Airport Rd., Ste. 300

Carlsbad, CA 92011-1028

Tel: (760) 282-4034

The Motions at issue were no served on any of these counsels.  According, the Motions are DENIED.

For the same reasons, the four discovery motions scheduled for 6/22/2023 appear to suffer from the same defects.  Accordingly, those motions are advanced to this date and also DENIED without prejudice. 

The parties are further ordered to meet and confer in an attempt to resolve the issues raised by the six discovery motions.

Any of the denied discovery motions may be re-filed within 20 court days.

Moving party to give notice.