Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV04480, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04480    Hearing Date: December 5, 2024    Dept: 29

Franco v. First Southern Baptist Church of Sylmar
22STCV04480
Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify Order

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On February 4, 2022, Plaintiff Maria Teresa Franco, individually and as successor-in-interest to Arturo Franco Melendez (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint against First Southern Baptist Church of Sylmar, Jose Soto Plasencia (“Soto Plasencia”), and Does 1 through 50 for motor vehicle negligence, premises liability, general negligence, and survival action.

On May 31, 2022, Sylmar First Southern Baptist Church Sylmar, California (erroneously sued as First Southern Baptist Church of Sylmar) (“First Southern”) filed an answer to the complaint.  On the same day, First Southern also filed a cross-complaint against Soto Plasencia, Iglesia Cristiana Altar De Dios (“Iglesia Cristiana”), California Southern Baptist Convention (“California Convention”), United Bethany Baptist Bible Church of California (“United Bethany”), and Roes 1 through 50. 

On December 15, 2022, First Southern amended its cross-complaint to name Henry Meza (“Meza”) as Roe 1.

Subsequently, the Court, at the request of First Southern, dismissed without prejudice all causes of action in First Southern’s cross-complaint against Iglesia Cristiana, California Convention, United Bethany, and Meza.  The only remaining cross-defendants on First Southern’s cross-complaint are Soto Plasencia and Roes 2 through 50.

On May 24, 2023, default was entered against Soto Plasencia on First Southern’s cross-complaint.

On Plaintiff’s ex parte application heard on January 23, 2024, the Court continued the trial date from February 22, 2024, to June 25, 2024.  At that time, the Court did not make an order extending any discovery deadlines but ruled that either party could seek such relief through a noticed motion.

On February 27, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery in part and ruled that the deposition of Soto Plasencia could be taken up until 30 days before the June 25 trial date.

On May 23, 2024, the Court approved the stipulation of the parties and continued the trial date to January 23, 2025.  Discovery remained closed, except as to the deposition of Soto Plasencia and expert discovery.

On October 4, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel and ordered Soto Plasencia to appear for deposition and answer questions under oath on October 30, 2024.

On November 13, 2024, Plaintiff field this motion to modify the Court’s order of October 4.

No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 128(a) states, in relevant part:

“Every court shall have the power to do all of the following:

…

(2) To enforce order in the proceedings before it, or before a person or persons empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under its authority.

(3) To provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it, or its officers.

…

(8) To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice….”

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks to modify the Court’s order of October 4, 2024 (the “Order”).  In the Order, the Court ordered Soto Plasencia to appear for deposition and answer questions under oath on October 30, 2024, but Plaintiff was unable (despite diligent efforts) to effect service of the Order on Soto Plasencia before the October 30 date.  (Leonardo Decl., ¶ 5.)  Plaintiff seeks to set the deposition on December 18, 2024.

Plaintiff has shown good cause for the requested relief.  The motion is granted.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to modify the Court’s order of October 4, 2024.

The Court ORDERS Jose Soto Plasencia to appear for deposition and answer questions under oath on December 18, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., at 1122 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 90017.

Moving party to give notice.