Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV46583, Date: 2023-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV46583    Hearing Date: February 23, 2023    Dept: 39

Mandana Nazar v. Shawn Yadidi, Case No. 21STCV46583

Plaintiffs’ opposition to the pending motion to compel was due on February 15, 2023.  The opposition was filed on February 16, 2023, at 11:43 a.m. and served via email.  Plaintiffs’ counsel apparently erred in forgetting that Monday, February 20, 2023, was a holiday.  Cross-Defendant Promed Medical Supplies, Inc. (“Promed”) filed a reply brief the next day—in advance of the deadline—arguing that the Court should not consider the opposition because it was filed one day late.  The reply brief also addressed the merits.  As a result, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed an ex parte application requesting that the Court consider this opposition brief, which Promed’s counsel opposes.

The Court should not have to resolve disputes of this nature.  There was no prejudice to Promed’s counsel, as he filed a reply brief on the merits in advance of his deadline.  Regardless, the solution to an opposition filed one day late is not to take positions that necessitate more litigation.  Instead, if necessary, Promed’s counsel should have requested a stipulation to continue the deadline to file a reply brief or a stipulation to continue the hearing on the motion.  There are no games of “gotcha” in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.    

Based upon the foregoing, the ex parte application is granted.  The Court orders the parties to review the Los Angeles County Superior Court’s Guidelines for Civility in Litigation, which may be found in Chapter Three, Appendix 3.A, of the Court’s local rules. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.