Judge Teresa A. Beaudet, Case Number: 21STCV03095, Date: 2025-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Carol M. Soni (aka Sylmarah Baruti) and The Estate of Obalajii Khephren Rust filed this action on January 26, 2021 against Defendants Kim B. Priestley and Darryl H. Priestley (jointly, “Defendants”). The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) wrongful eviction,

(2) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (3) conversion, and (4) defamation per se.

Defendants now move for “an order compelling Plaintiff to submit to a mental examination.” Carol Soni (“Plaintiff”) appears to oppose.[1]

As an initial matter, as noted by Defendants, Plaintiff’s opposition to the instant motion

was untimely filed. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b), “[a]ll papers opposing a motion so noticed shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days, and all reply papers at least five court days before the hearing.” Here, Plaintiff’s opposition to the instant motion was filed on January 21, 2025. However, nine court days prior to the January 30, 2025 hearing on the instant motion is January 16, 2025. Thus, Plaintiff’s opposition was filed five days late.

In addition, the proof of service filed with Plaintiff’s opposition indicates that the opposition was served electronically on January 21, 2025. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, subdivision (a)(3)(B), “[a]ny period of notice, or any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after the service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended after service by electronic means by two court days…” The Court notes that eleven court days (9 court days + 2 court days) prior to the January 30, 2025 hearing is January 14, 2025. As set forth above, Plaintiff’s opposition was served electronically on January 21, 2025. Thus, the opposition was served seven days late. Nevertheless, Defendant filed a reply.

In his declaration in support of the opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel states that “this opposition duplicates the opposition to Defendant’s previous motion set for October 24, 2024. If it is filed and served late, such lateness is due to clerical error in finding the previous opposition and it is respectfully requested that it be received by the Court.” (Gebriel Decl., p. 1:9-11.)[2] The Court does not understand why Plaintiff has filed an opposition that has been superseded by more recent events in this case. The Court would appreciate having a currently responsive opposition and reply. The Court will discuss this issue with the parties at the hearing.

ADDITIONALLY, THE COURT NOTES THAT IT DID NOT RECEIVE COURTESY COPIES OF THE MOVING OR OPPOSING PAPERS.

The Court continues the hearing on the Defendants’ motion to ____________, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 50.

[1]The Court notes that the opposition filed on January 21, 2025 is captioned “Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion for Mental Examination as to Terms and Conditions of any Such Examination.” Technically, the opposition does not specify which of the two plaintiffs opposes the motion; presumably it is Plaintiff Soni. Additionally, the opposition is signed by an “Attorney for Plaintiff, Carol Soni.” Thus, the Court construes the opposition as filed by Carol Soni.

[2]The Court notes that the first page of the Declaration of Girma H. Gabriel is marked “pg. 8.”

CAROL M. SONI (AKA SYLMARAH BARUTI), et al., Plaintiffs, vs. KIM B. PRIESTLEY, et al., Defendants.	Case No.:	21STCV03095
	Hearing Date:	January 30, 2025
	Hearing Time:	2:00 p.m.
	[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF, CAROL SONI, TO SUBMIT TO A MENTAL EXAMINATION

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50