Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 22VECV01190, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

If ALL parties submit on the tentative, then no appearance is necessary unless some other matter (i.e., Case Management Conference) is on calendar. It is not necessary to call the court to request oral argument. Oral argument is permitted on all tentative rulings.

Case Number: 22VECV01190    Hearing Date: February 28, 2023    Dept: T

Tentative Ruling: 2/28/2023

Forrester v. Reshad

22VECV01190

1. Demurrer to Answer: Moot.  Defendant timely filed an Amended Answer.  The demurrer is off calendar.

2. Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint: Sustained on the issue solely as to which cause of action applies to which defendants, or all defendants with 20 days leave to amend. This case does not present with the usual issues of corporate liability.  Here, there is a professional corporation. A professional corporation can only act through the licensed principal.  Here, in essence, Dr. Reshad and his corporation are one.  There is no need to allege “ratification” or other types of allegations when there is a principal/agent relationship.

3. Motion to filed 3rd Amended Complaint-discuss at hearing.

4. Defendant’s Motion to compel further response and production of documents (RFP Set One.)

On 1/25/2023, the court sent the following email to the parties:

“The court has reviewed defendant’s pending Motion to Compel set 1/31/2023 and requests that the parties have a discussion to attempt to resolve this discovery dispute.  This motion concerns REQUESTS FOR IDENTIFICATION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS which were served to plaintiff.  This is a discovery method that is separate and distinct from Interrogatories.  Plaintiff’s objections state that “defendant exceeded the number of interrogatories allowed by California law.”  These are not interrogatories.  These are request for production of documents.  The court hopes that this matter can be resolved without the need for a hearing.”

The court notes that thereafter, according to a filing with the court, plaintiff served responses to the RFP and/or documents on 2/2/2023.  The motion was filed on 12/21/2022 and has not been updated since then.  Defendant has not filed any supplemental papers indicating what plaintiff served on 2/2/2023, and whether or not whatever was served was deficient.  Accordingly, the court’s intention is to continue this hearing for the court to review and determine how to rule on the pending motion.