Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 20STCV47990, Date: 2024-01-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV47990 Hearing Date: January 18, 2024 Dept: 68
Dept. 68
Date: 1-18-24
Case 20STCV47990
Trial Date: 3-25-24
MOTION FOR OSC
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Sascha Lynch, pro per
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Gerson Moreno
RELIEF REQUESTED
Motion for OSC Re: Provision of Policy Limit Information for Operative Period
SUMMARY OF ACTION
On January 2, 2019, plaintiff Sascha Lynch was involved in an automobile collision with defendant Gerson Jacton Moreno (Defendant) on the northbound 110 Freeway in Los Angeles. On December 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint against for motor vehicle negligence.
RULING: Denied.
Request for Judicial Notice: Denied.
The court cannot take judicial notice of a filed pleading or discovery responses for the truth of any matter asserted.
Plaintiff Sascha Lynch moves for the court to set an OSC re: Provision of Insurance Policy Limits for January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2021. Defendant Moreno in opposition maintains the motion is untimely, and moot either way given the executed settlement agreement between the parties. Plaintiff in reply concedes to the settlement agreement, states the motion was timely filed, and continues to press for a code compliant verified statement regarding the policy limit.
The motion was untimely filed 14 court days before the hearing date. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 10, 12, 12a, 12b, 12c, 1005, subd. (b).)
The context of the motion itself arises from a November 16, 2023, settlement conference, whereby the insurance counsel for Allstate stated the operative limit per incident was $25,000, with a copy of the operative insurance policy was presented for review by Plaintiff and counsel. The insurer agreed to tender the full policy limit at the settlement conference, and the offer was accepted. Prior to the settlement conference, defendant admits to incorrectly identifying the policy limit in response to form interrogatories, but amended responses were served. Defendant denies ever being served with a request for production of documents regarding the subject policy. [Declaration of Megan Cardena.]
Plaintiff accepted the settlement and according to Defendant, cashed the check. [Id., Ex. A, E.] Plaintiff in reply offers no opposition to this representation. Notwithstanding the subject sought after information, Defendant also attaches a copy of the policy conforming to the representation of the policy limit. [Id., Ex. E.] Again, the reply shows no address of the presented policy information, and the necessity for the setting of an OSC re: Production of Documents without any actual underlying proof of service of a request to compel production.
The court otherwise finds no basis for the setting of an OSC on this basis. (Code Civ. Proc., 128.7, Cal. Rules Ct., rule 3.1306 (no Los Angeles Superior Court rule under the same number exists).) Thus, given the accepted settlement and no factually supported basis for a dispute over the represented settlement limit, the court denies the motion.
The March 25, 2024, jury trial remains set pending further hearing at the concurrently set OSC re: Dismissal (Settlement).
Plaintiff to provide notice.