Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case 19TRCV00989 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 19TRCV00989, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19TRCV00989 Hearing Date: January 5, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling: Status Conference, Motions to Compel, and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

HEARING DATE: January 5, 2023¿

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 of 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.

The Court conducted a hearing on December 12, 2022. At the hearing, the Court continued the matters of the discovery motions to January 5, 2023, requested an updated status report on the Trust, and enabled counsel to give notice of and file his motion to be relieved.

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’s previous inclination to set dates for the discovery motions to be heard and to conduct a status conference is affected by the recent filing of a motion by Defense counsel to be relieved from representing Mr. Moreno and Mr. Pedersen. The Court is concerned about conformation of a current and accurate mailing and other contact information for Mr. Moreno. Mr. Pedersen is asserted to have passed away with no substitution of a personal representative or successor trustee yet filed in this case. Since Messrs. Moreno and Pedersen are also the Cross-Complainants, it is not clear to the Court what will happen to the cross-complaint if Mr. Morena has moved out of state and will not communicate with or cooperate with counsel. Plaintiff’s TSC brief asserts that the case is not at issue, the discovery propounded by a now-deceased party is now moot because of his death, and that there is a failure to join indispensable parties. All of these issues warrant responses by the opposing parties but at this time that seems impracticable.

The Court’s tentative ruling is to address the motion to be relieved as counsel first, to confirm the status of the Trust of which the late Mr. Pedersen had been the trustee and attempt to ascertain whether any party will be prosecuting the Cross-Complaint.