Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 23VECV01030, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23VECV01030    Hearing Date: April 25, 2023    Dept: T

23VECV01030 SHELLY HART vs LASALLE PROPERTY FUND REIT, INC

This is a tentative ruling on the ex parte application of plaintiff Ms. Hart on 4 issues. The California Rules of Court limit the use of ex parte applications.  Rule 3.1202 states: “An applicant must make an affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte.” 

Therefore, as a preliminary matter, if “irremediable harm” or “immediate danger” would not occur while waiting for a noticed motion, the ex parte application must be denied.  If there is no statutory basis for ex parte relief, then ex parte application must be denied.

The court will not make decisions in this case based on rulings made by other judges in unrelated cases.  Plaintiff cannot use evidence and declarations in unrelated actions to support applications for ex parte application in this case.  Ex parte applications in this case require compliance with Rule 3.1202.

The court reviews each ex parte application while applying these requirements.

1.     Ex parte application to serve Rafael Abundio and Ilsin Castanon at the subject property

This ex parte application does not any “irremediable harm” or “immediate danger” would occur if ex parte relief is not granted. There is no statutory basis for the relief.  There is no authority for the court to order counsel to give plaintiff information unless mandated by statute.  There is no statutory authority to order that the summons and complaint be mailed to persons residing within the State.  There is no basis for the court to order how substituted service can be done.  The methods for service are listed in the statutes.  Accordingly, there is no basis for ex parte relief as to this ex parte application.

2.    Ex parte application notice “in-person” depositions beginning at 8:30 a.m.

The court notes that there are no discovery motions filed in this case and defendants have not yet filed an appearance. This ex parte application does not show “irremediable harm” or “immediate danger” would occur while waiting for a noticed motion.  There is no statutory basis for the relief.  Accordingly, there is no basis for ex parte relief as to this ex parte application.

3.    Ex parte application deeming LaSalle Property Fund Reit, Inc. the correct entity

The court does not make this type of factual determination without a statutory basis to do so.  There is no statutory basis for the court to do so identified in the ex parte application. There is no trial pending.  The court notes that there is no pending motion.  Defendants have not yet appeared in this case. Accordingly, there is no basis for ex parte relief as to this ex parte application.

4.    Ex parte application to “cease destruction of evidence”

California Rules of Court require that there be a declaration containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte.  There is no declaration which explains the basis for this order.  The court cannot take oral testimony at law and motion hearings.  Accordingly, there is no basis for ex parte relief as to this ex parte application.