Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

MOSTAFAVI LAW GROUP, APC, Plaintiff, vs. LARRY RABINEAU, et al., Defendants.	Case No.:	BC565480
	Hearing Date:	April 3, 2023
	Hearing Time:	10:00 a.m.
	ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS TO STRIKE THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF THE CONDITIONAL PRIVILEGE OF COMMON INTEREST IN THE THIRD AMENDED ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT

Background

Plaintiff Mostafavi Law Group, APC filed this action on December 2, 2014 against Defendants Larry Rabineau, a Professional Corporation and Larry Rabineau.

Plaintiffs Mostafavi Law Group, APC and Amir Mostafavi (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on November 6, 2015. The SAC asserts causes of action for (1) inducing breach of contract, (2) interference with contractual relations, (3) intentional interference with prospective economic relations, (4) negligent interference with prospective economic relations, and (5) defamation per se.

On May 4, 2018, Defendants Law Offices of Larry Rabineau, a Professional Corporation and Larry Rabineau (jointly, “Defendants”) filed a Third Amended Answer to Complaint.

Plaintiffs now move pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 438 for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the eleventh affirmative defense of Defendants’ Third Amended Answer. Defendants oppose.

Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration filed in support of the motion does not demonstrate that the parties met and conferred by telephone or in person regarding Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 439, subdivision (a), “[b]efore filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings. If an amended pleading is filed, the responding party shall meet and confer again with the party who filed the amended pleading before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings against the amended pleading.” (Emphasis added.) Such meeting and conferring must be done in good faith with an effort to try to resolve the issues subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

In light of the foregoing, the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is continued to May 16, 2023 at 2 p.m. in Dept. 50.

Plaintiffs are¿ordered to meet¿and confer¿with Defendants within 10 days of the date of this order.¿If the parties are unable to resolve the pleading issues¿or if the parties are otherwise unable to meet and confer in good faith, Plaintiffs are to¿thereafter¿file and serve¿a declaration setting forth the efforts to meet and confer in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 439, subdivision (a)(3) within 15 days of this order.¿

///

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this order.

DATED: April 3, 2023 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court