Judge: Ronald F. Frazier, Case: 37-2021-00021672-CU-MC-CTL, Date: 2023-10-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 28, 2023

09/29/2023  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Ronald F. Frazier

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Misc Complaints - Other Discovery Hearing 37-2021-00021672-CU-MC-CTL THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS GOLDEN [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 09/05/2023

Defendant Lisa Golden's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Receiver Neil Scheaffer, Richardson Griswold, Griswold Law, Bank of New York/Shellpoint, and Contractor Leisah Hall; for Appearance of Hall at Deposition and Demand for Return of Missing/Stolen Property from Residence; Sanctions for Non-Compliance with Subpoena is ordered off calendar. (ROA 946.) Once again, Defendant has not filed a proper proof of service as to any parties or as to the non-party deponents who are the subjects of her motion. As the court has explained to Defendant many times, the court cannot consider Defendant's motion papers if they have not been properly served. The court is unable to confirm whether Defendant's motion papers have been properly served without a proper proof of service.

Defendant did file two purported proofs of service which appear to be related to this motion. (ROA 960, 961.) A proof of service 'must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for hearing.' (Cal. R. Court, rule 3.1300(c).) Both documents were filed on September 25, 2023, less than five days prior to this hearing.

The first proof of service (ROA 961) is a three-page form (form POS-040). However, pages 2 and 3 are missing. As such, the court is unable to confirm how service of the moving papers was achieved and who served the moving papers. The page containing the signature with the declaration under penalty of perjury is also missing.

The second proof of service (ROA 960) pertains to the reply papers, not the moving papers.

Further, as with Defendant's previous motion, the court notes Defendant's memorandum and the document labeled as a declaration indicate there are 'EXHIBITS (FILED SEPARATELY).' However, no exhibits were filed. Thus, even if the motion was properly served, the motion lacks supporting evidence.

Finally, the court notes, yet again, it granted a protective order more than a year ago preventing Defendant from taking Mr. Scheaffer's deposition.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2968661  8