Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: 22STCV14017, Date: 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling
DEPARTMENT 19 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
If you desire to submit on a tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 19 before 08:00 a.m. on the day of the motion hearing. The e-mail address for submitting is SMCDept19@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail must contain the case name and number, and that you submit. For example, "Smith v. Jones BC551124, submit". The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent.
PLEASE NOTE, The above e-mail address is only to inform the Court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries or correspondence will not receive a response.
Case Number: 22STCV14017 Hearing Date: March 27, 2023 Dept: 19
The Hearing on Motion for Possession is CONTINUED TO June 15, 2023, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 19 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.
The Case Management Conference is also CONTINUED TO June 15, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.
The Court still cannot rule on the Motion for Possession (“Motion”) at this time for the reasons discussed below:
As explained in its January 17, 2023 Minute Order, the Court ordered Plaintiff to do the following: (1) file proper Proofs of Service, signed and dated, that indicates (a) when the Summons and Complaint were served by publication and (b) stating that the Motion papers were served on Defendants Robert Hwa Cheng and Sau Chun Yu Cheng, Husband And Wife as Joint Tenants, and indicating a court hearing on the Motion not less than sixty (60) days after service of the Motion papers; (2) to file Proofs of Service stating that the Notice of the Pendency of Proceeding was served/posted as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1250.150; and (3) with respect to proof of service regarding “All Persons Interested, Et Al.,” to republish in the Antelope Valley Press a publication that fully complies with Code of Civil Procedure sections 1250.120 through 1250.130, including a description of the Property “reasonably calculated to give persons with an interest in the property actual notice of the pending proceeding.” (January 17, 2023 Minute Order, pp. 1-2.)
As an initial matter, after consideration of the proof of publication filed on March 2, 2023, the Court finds that Plaintiff has provided sufficient proof of service regarding “All Persons Interested, Et Al.”
Further,, the Court has considered the declaration of Kelly E. Curran, filed on February 27, 2023, whereby Ms. Curran attests that proofs of service filed on July 7, 2022 establish that the Notice of Pendency of Proceeding was served on Defendants Southern California Edison Company and Vincent T.C. Tai along with the Summons and Complaint. (See Kelly E. Curran Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.) The Court finds that the Proofs of Service, filed on July 7, 2022, sufficiently establish that Defendants Southern California Edison Company and Vincent T.C. Tai were served with the along with the Summons and Complaint.
However, none of the proofs of service, including the Proofs of Service by Posting filed on February 3, 2023, indicate that the Notice of Pendency of Proceeding was served on the other defendants along with the Summons and Complaint as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1250.150. The Proofs of Service by Posting, filed on February 3, 2023, contain the same Exhibit A as the previous proofs of service, which the Court explained is insufficient to demonstrate service of the Notice of Pendency of Proceeding because the Court cannot sufficiently discern the papers pictured in Exhibit A. (See January 17, 2023 Minute Order at p. 2.)
Further, the Proofs of Service by Posting, filed on February 3, 2023, still only state in Section 2 that the Summons and Complaint were served, and fail to mention the Lis Pendens. In addition, the Proofs of Service by Posting, filed on February 3, 2023, for Defendants Robert Hwa Cheng and Sau Chun Yu Cheng do not indicate that the Motion papers were served on them giving notice of a court hearing on the Motion not less than sixty (60) days after service of the Motion papers.
In sum, the Court is not satisfied that the Notice of Pendency of Proceeding was served/posted along with the Summons and Complaint as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1250.150 with respect to the defendants other than Defendants Southern California Edison Company and Vincent T.C. Tai, or that Defendants Robert Hwa Cheng and Sau Chun Yu Cheng were properly served with the Motion papers and given proper notice of the hearing for prejudgment possession.
Once again, Plaintiff is ordered to file proof of service indicting (1) that the Motion papers were served on Defendants Robert Hwa Cheng and Sau Chun Yu Cheng, Husband And Wife as Joint Tenants, indicating a court hearing on the Motion not less than sixty (60) days after service of the Motion papers; and (2) that the Notice of the Pendency of Proceeding was served/posted as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1250.150 on the defendants other than Defendants Southern California Edison Company and Vincent T.C. Tai. The above Proofs of Service must be filed by June 1, 2023.
Counsel for Plaintiff is to give notice.