Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV03745, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV03745 Hearing Date: March 21, 2024 Dept: 53
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – Central District
Department
53
|
vs. |
Case
No.: |
23STCV03745 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing
Date: |
March
21, 2024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Tentative]
Order RE: defendants’ motion for judgment on the
pleadings |
||
MOVING PARTIES:
Defendants Marc Tavakoli,
individually and as trustee of the Tavakoli Family Trust, Vivian Dao, and MDT
Properties, Inc.
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Keith Fox
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
On February 28, 2024, defendants Marc Tavakoli, individually and as
trustee of the Tavakoli Family Trust, Vivian Dao, and MDT Properties, Inc.
(“Defendants”) filed the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the
first through seventh causes of action alleged in the First Amended Complaint
filed by plaintiff Keith Fox (“Plaintiff”).
The court finds that Defendants have not shown that they (1) served
Plaintiff with this motion, and (2) provided Plaintiff with sufficient notice
of the hearing on this motion.
First, the proof of service attached to the motion for judgment on the
pleadings is not signed and is therefore defective and insufficient to
establish that Defendants served Plaintiff with the motion as set forth therein.[1] (Mot., p. 12 [proof of service].)
Second, even if proof of service weren’t defective, service of
Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiff on February 28,
2024 by electronic service would not have provided Plaintiff with sufficient
notice of the hearing on this motion.
“[A]ll moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least
16 court days before the hearing.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Moreover,
“[a]ny period of notice, or any right or duty to do any act or make any
response within any period or on a date certain after the service of the
document . . . shall be extended after service by electronic means by two court
days . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).) For the
hearing date of March 21, 2024, Defendants were required to serve Plaintiff
with this motion by February 26, 2024 (16 court days + 2 court days for
electronic service). (Code Civ. Proc.,
§§ 1005, subd. (b), 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).) Thus, the court finds that, even if
Defendants had filed a complete proof of service with the court, electronic
service of the motion on Plaintiff on February 28, 2024 would not have provided
Plaintiff with sufficient notice of the hearing on this motion.
The court therefore denies Defendants’ motion for judgment on the
pleadings, without prejudice to Defendants’ refiling its motion for judgment on
the pleadings after curing the procedural defects discussed in this ruling.
ORDER
The court denies defendants Marc
Tavakoli, individually and as trustee of the Tavakoli Family Trust, Vivian Dao,
and MDT Properties, Inc.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, without
prejudice.
The court orders plaintiff Keith Fox
to give notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
_____________________________
Robert
B. Broadbelt III
Judge
of the Superior Court
[1]
The court notes that Plaintiff filed an untimely opposition on March 15, 2024,
which may indicate that Defendants did serve Plaintiff with this motion. The court further notes that the proof of
service attached to Defendants’ request for judicial notice is signed, but that
proof of service establishes only service of the request for judicial notice on
Plaintiff, and not the motion. (Request
for Judicial Notice, p. 23.)