MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Date: 9/18/20 (8:30 AM)
Case: Vincent DeRosa et al. v. K9 Loft Inc. (19STCV12734)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiffs Vincent DeRosa and Angela Nazari’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence and Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that it exercises its discretion to consider defendants K-9 Loft Inc., Afshin Sabouri, and Harmony Noennich’s extremely untimely opposition, which was filed during the late afternoon three days before the hearing on the motion. In choosing to do so, the Court also notes that plaintiffs gave untimely notice of the motion in the first instance. Plaintiffs served their motion by email on August 26, 2020. Pursuant to CCP § 1010.6(a)(4)(B), plaintiffs were required to add two court days to the usual 16 court day deadline under CCP § 1005(b). Thus, based on a hearing date of September 18, 2020, plaintiffs were required to serve their motion by email on August 24, 2020. Instead, they u
Hearing Date
September 18, 2020
Type
Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Date: 9/18/20 (8:30 AM)
Case: Vincent DeRosa et al. v. K9 Loft Inc. (19STCV12734)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiffs Vincent DeRosa and Angela Nazari’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence and Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that it exercises its discretion to consider defendants K-9 Loft Inc., Afshin Sabouri, and Harmony Noennich’s extremely untimely opposition, which was filed during the late afternoon three days before the hearing on the motion. In choosing to do so, the Court also notes that plaintiffs gave untimely notice of the motion in the first instance. Plaintiffs served their motion by email on August 26, 2020. Pursuant to CCP § 1010.6(a)(4)(B), plaintiffs were required to add two court days to the usual 16 court day deadline under CCP § 1005(b). Thus, based on a hearing date of September 18, 2020, plaintiffs were required to serve their motion by email on August 24, 2020. Instead, they u