Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 19TRCV00989, Date: 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19TRCV00989 Hearing Date: December 12, 2022 Dept: 8
Tentative Ruling: Status Conference
and Motions to Compel
¿
HEARING DATE: December 12, 2022¿
¿
CASE NUMBER: 19TRCV00989
¿
CASE NAME: DML
Enterprises, LLC v. Augustine Moreno, et al
¿
TRIAL DATE: None set
I. BACKGROUND¿
¿
On
May 5, 2022, Judge Tanaka in Torrance conducted an IDC on four discovery
motions filed by Defendant Pedersen that were set for hearing on June 1, 2022.
The case was also set for a Status Conference and a Trial Setting Conference.
The combined IDC, Status Conference and Trial Setting Conference was not
recorded by a court reporter. Thereafter,
the Court issued a Minute Order continuing the same combined hearings to August
24, 2022. Plaintiff served a Notice or Ruling
on August 17, 2022, a week before the continued combined hearings, detailing his
view as to what had transpired in May. On August 22, 2022, Defendant Augustin
Moreno and Defendant and Cross-Complainant Robert Pedersen filed a status
report that objected to Plaintiff’s notice of ruling. Each of these August, 2022 filings disclosed
some of the substance of settlement negotiations and some procedural steps to
be taken with respect to the still-pending discovery motions. On August 24, the Court continued the combined
hearings for several more months. Since
then, this case was administratively reassigned from Torrance to
Inglewood.
On
November 28, 2022, counsel for Defendant Augustin Moreno and Defendant and
Cross-Complainant Robert Pedersen filed an updated Status Report, noting that Mr.
Pedersen had passed away and that counsel did not believe that the Court could
proceed until the decedent’s personal representative could be substituted
in. Also in this status report, counsel
for
Augustin Moreno asserts
that was apparently sued because he worked on and around the Property. The report
argued that with the passing of Pedersen and the transfer of the Property from
the Trust to Ms. Kellogg, Moreno is no longer working on or around the
Property. Additionally, Defendant asserts that Moreno now lives primarily in
Arizona and, accordingly is no longer in a position to take any of the actions
that DML seeks to enjoin. As such, Defendant asserts that Moreno should be
dismissed as a Defendant.
Lastly,
Defendant has requested that, since it appears the case will not be resolved by
settlement, this Court should set a hearing on the Motions to Compel Further
Discovery Responses and that this Court continue the status conference. The Court is inclined to do just that so
counsel and self-represented parties should prepare to attend the December 12
hearings with calendars in hand to select dates.