Order: Andres P Mendez vs Maria M Catalan et al

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
                                                        COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

             Dated and Entered:         08/15/2022                                        Time:    10:00 AM
             Judicial Officer:          Colleen K Sterne
             Deputy Clerk:              Danae Chauvin-Couture                             Dept:    SB Dept 5
             Deputy Sheriff:            David Allcott
             Court Reporter:            Christopher Dunsmore                              Case No: 21CV03401


             Andres P Mendez vs Maria M Catalan et al
             Parties Present:
             Jan Kaestner               Attorney for Defendant (via Zoom)

             NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:                  Motion: Compel
             The matter proceeded via Zoom.

             The Court adopted the tentative ruling and continued the matter as follows:

             October 17, 2022 10:00 AM
             Motion: Compel
             Sterne, Colleen K
             SB Dept 5

             RULING:

             The Court continues the hearing on defendant’s motion to October 17, 2022, in accordance with this
             ruling.


             Background:

             In the First Amended Complaint (FAC) filed on September 22, 2021, plaintiff Andres P. Mendez alleges
             two causes of action against defendant Maria M. Catalan for breach of contract and common counts,
             arising out of an alleged failure to repay a loan in the amount of $80,000 that was used to purchase
             money for defendant’s residence. Defendants Jose Catalan and Guadalupe Laguna were added as doe
             defendants on October 4, 2021.

             On May 26, 2022, defendant Maria Catalan filed a notice of motion to compel further responses to form
             interrogatories and request for sanctions. Court records reflect that defendant did not file a supporting
             memorandum, or a separate statement. Defendant also did not file a proof of service evidencing service
             of the notice, or a memorandum or separate statement, on plaintiff. On August 11, 2022, plaintiff filed an
             objection to defendant’s notice of motion, stating that he was served with the notice of motion on June
             30, 2022 but did not receive a copy of a memorandum or declaration by electronic or other means of
             service. (Esparza Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4.)



                                                                                                                              Page 1 of 2



             SC-2411 (Revised July 1, 2013)                   MINUTE ORDER
                                                                                                      21CV03401 Mendez vs Catalan
                                                                                                        Minute Order August 15, 2022
                                                                                                                               Page 2 of 2

             Analysis:

             Papers filed in support of a motion must include a notice of hearing on the motion, the motion, and a
             memorandum in support of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1112(a).) “A party filing a motion,
             except for a motion listed in rule 3.1114, must serve and file a supporting memorandum. The court may
             construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion or special demurrer is not
             meritorious and cause for its denial and, in the case of a demurrer, as a waiver of all grounds not
             supported.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(a).) Further, a motion to compel further responses to
             interrogatories must be accompanied by a compliant separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
             3.1345(a)(2).) All moving papers must be served in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section
             1005, and proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than 5 court days before the
             hearing date. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(a) & (c).)

             The Court will not at this time construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the
             referenced motion is not meritorious, nor will the Court deny the motion for failure to comply with court
             rules governing format of discovery motions. (See Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.)
             The Court will construe plaintiff’s failure to file and serve a memorandum and separate statement as
             inadvertent error and will continue the hearing on the motion to October 17, 2022. Defendant must file
             and serve a procedurally compliant motion on or before September 16, 2022. Should the parties resolve
             their dispute, the Court requests prompt notification of any such resolution, including whether the motion
             should be taken off-calendar.




             DARREL E. PARKER, EXECUTIVE OFFICER                               Minutes Prepared by:
                                                                                          Danae Chauvin-Couture                    , Deputy




             SC-2411 (Revised July 1, 2013)                   MINUTE ORDER