Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV01046, Date: 2024-11-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01046    Hearing Date: November 18, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiffs Maria Luisa Trevejo (“Trevejo”) and MLT World, LLC (“MLT”) filed this action on January 17, 2023 against Defendant Stephen Belafonte (“Belafonte”). Trevejo and MLT filed the operative Second Amended Complaint on July 14, 2023, alleging causes of action for (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) intentional misrepresentation, (3) negligent misrepresentation, (4) conversion, (5) accounting, and (6) violation of usury laws.

On August 15, 2023, Belafonte filed a Cross-Complaint against Trevejo and MLT (jointly, “Cross-Defendants”). On December 14, 2023, Belafonte filed the operative First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”), alleging causes of action for (1) breach of written contract, (2) breach of implied and oral contract, (3) defamation, (4) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, (5) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, (7) accounting, (8) for account stated, and (9) for open book account.[1]

Cross-Defendants now move for judgment on the pleadings as to each of the causes of action of the FACC. The motion is unopposed. 

Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Cross-Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of the motion exceeds the applicable page limit requirements.  

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113, subdivision (d), “[e]xcept in a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages. In a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 20 pages. No reply or closing memorandum may exceed 10 pages. The page limit does not include the caption page, the notice of motion and motion, exhibits, declarations, attachments, the table of contents, the table of authorities, or the proof of service.” (Emphasis added.) Here, Cross-Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities is 20 pages, well exceeding the applicable page limit. Cross-Defendants do not appear to cite any Court order authorizing them to include additional pages in the motion.

The Court notes that pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113, subdivision (g), “[a] memorandum that exceeds the page limits of these rules must be filed and considered in the same manner as a late-filed paper.” Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, subdivision (d), “[n]o paper may be rejected for filing on the ground that it was untimely submitted for filing. If the court, in its discretion, refuses to consider a late filed paper, the minutes or order must so indicate.” The Court, in its discretion, will consider Cross-Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. However, in light of Cross-Defendants’ violation of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113, subdivision (d), the Court continues the hearing on the motion.

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing procedural issue, the Court continues the hearing on Cross-Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings to ____________, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. in Dept. 50.

On or before ____________, 2024, Cross-Defendants are to file and serve amended moving papers that comply with the page number limits set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113, subdivision (d). Courtesy copies shall be delivered to Dept. 50. No new evidence or new argument is to be submitted in Cross-Defendants’ amended moving papers.

Cross-Defendants are ordered to give notice of this Order.¿¿ 

DATED:  November 18, 2024                       ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court