Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV23287, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23287    Hearing Date: February 29, 2024    Dept: 29

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories

Tentative

The hearing on the motion is continued.

Background

This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident on June 27, 2019 at or near Rinaldi Street in Porter Ranch.  On June 23, 2021, Plaintiff Jarrett Townsend (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint in this action against Defendants Einna Marie Altarejos Macavinta, Maribel Altarejos (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.  Defendants filed their answer on March 17, 2023.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories is set for hearing on February 29.  Before the Court can consider the merits of this discovery motion, however, two threshold preliminary issues must be resolved.

First, and most significantly, on December 13, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration reporting that Plaintiff died on September 21, 2023.  Subsequently, on February 14, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration from David Estey stating, in essence, (1) that Plaintiff’s successor-in-interest is Karma Townsend, a minor (15 years old); and (2) that Mr. Estey is his duly and legally appointed guardian.

The declaration filed on February 14, however, is not sufficient in an of itself to allow Karma Townsend, through his guardian David Estey, to prosecute this action.  Rather, a motion must be filed for an order substituting Plaintiff’s successor-in-interest as plaintiff, supported by a declaration that includes all of the information set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 377.31-377.33.)

Because the successor-in-interest is a minor, an application for appointment of a guardian ad litem and a proposed order may also be required. 

Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on the motion to compel until an appropriate order of substitution is completed.

Second, as set forth in the declaration of Defendants’ counsel filed on January 26, 2024, it appears that counsel for Defendants did not receive proper notice of the advanced date for the Informal Discovery Conference (IDC).  Under these circumstances, following the entry of an appropriate order of substitution, the successor-in-interest of Plaintiff should schedule a new IDC prior to the continued hearing date on the motion to compel.

Conclusion

The Court, on its own motion, CONTINUES the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel (filed 11/13/23) for approximately 90 days.

Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses is continued to 05/30/2024 at 01:30
PM in Department 29 at Spring Street Courthouse.

In the interim, the Court expects that (1) Plaintiff’s counsel will file an appropriate motion for the substitution of Plaintiff’s successor-in-interest as plaintiff in this matter, replacing the decedent; (2) following the entry of an order of substitution, Plaintiff’s successor-in-interest will schedule a new IDC prior to the hearing date on the motion to compel.

Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to give notice.