This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/07/2019 at 21:00:30 (UTC).

THE HERTZ CORPORATION VS RACHAL SMITH

Case Summary

On 12/27/2017 THE HERTZ CORPORATION filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against RACHAL SMITH. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is THOMAS D. LONG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1300

  • Filing Date:

    12/27/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

THOMAS D. LONG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

THE HERTZ CORPORATION

Defendant

SMITH RACHAL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

ANDRADE CHRISTOPHER

 

Court Documents

Answer

2/21/2018: Answer

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

2/22/2018: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

8/22/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Declaration (name extension) - of Christopher Andrade

8/22/2018: Declaration (name extension) - of Christopher Andrade

Motion for Order (name extension) - Compelling Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Form Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions

8/22/2018: Motion for Order (name extension) - Compelling Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Form Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions

Stipulation for the Appointment of Court Commissioner as Temporary Judge

10/11/2018: Stipulation for the Appointment of Court Commissioner as Temporary Judge

Minute Order - (Court Order transferring case Upon review, the Court finds t...)

10/17/2018: Minute Order - (Court Order transferring case Upon review, the Court finds t...)

Certificate of Mailing for - Minute Order (Court Order transferring case Upon review, the Court finds t...) of 10/17/2018

10/17/2018: Certificate of Mailing for - Minute Order (Court Order transferring case Upon review, the Court finds t...) of 10/17/2018

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

11/27/2018: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Christopher Andrade

11/27/2018: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Christopher Andrade

Response (name extension) - Defendant Rachal Smith Response to Plaintiff The Hertz Corporation Request for Admission Set One

12/26/2018: Response (name extension) - Defendant Rachal Smith Response to Plaintiff The Hertz Corporation Request for Admission Set One

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

12/26/2018: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Personal Service

1/24/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Service - No Service

1/10/2018: Proof of Service - No Service

Summons - on Complaint

12/27/2017: Summons - on Complaint

Complaint

12/27/2017: Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

12/27/2017: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Order to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740)

12/27/2017: Order to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740)

10 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/04/2019
  • Case reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 94 - Hon. James E. Blancarte; Reason: Inventory Transfer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2019
  • Updated -- Motion for Order Compelling Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Form Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions: Result: Denied; Result Date: 01/08/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2019
  • Updated -- Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion: Filed By: THE HERTZ CORPORATION (Plaintiff); Result: Denied; Result Date: 01/08/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2019
  • Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...) of 01/08/2019; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2019
  • Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 01/08/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 01/08/2019; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2019
  • Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 01/08/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 01/08/2019; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2018
  • Defendant Rachal Smith Response to Plaintiff The Hertz Corporation Request for Admission Set One; Filed by: RACHAL SMITH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2018
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by: RACHAL SMITH (Defendant); As to: THE HERTZ CORPORATION (Plaintiff); After Substituted Service of Summons & Complaint ?: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2018
  • Declaration of Christopher Andrade; Filed by: THE HERTZ CORPORATION (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
21 More Docket Entries
  • 01/24/2018
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by: THE HERTZ CORPORATION (Plaintiff); As to: RACHAL SMITH (Defendant); Service Date: 01/22/2018; Service Cost: 87.50; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2018
  • Proof of Service - No Service; Filed by:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by: THE HERTZ CORPORATION (Plaintiff); As to: RACHAL SMITH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: THE HERTZ CORPORATION (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • Summons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • Order to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740); Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • Case assigned to Hon. Thomas D. Long in Department B Norwalk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • Order to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service and Failure to File Default Judgment Pursuant to CRC 3.740 scheduled for 01/02/2019 at 08:30 AM in Norwalk Courthouse at Department B

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • The case is placed in special status of: Collections Case (CCP 3.740)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 17NWLC11300    Hearing Date: February 04, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

(CCP § 2024.050)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff The Hertz Corporation’s Motion to Reopen Discovery is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

I. Background & Discussion

On December 27, 2017, Plaintiff The Hertz Corporation (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract and indebtedness against Defendant Rachal Smith (“Defendant”).

On November 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. On January 8, 2019, the Court denied the motion because discovery had closed. (1/8/2019 Minute Order.)

On July 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reopen Discovery (the “Motion”). On October 29, 2019, the Court continued this Motion because Plaintiff had failed to include a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure, section 2024.050, subdivision (a). (10/29/19 Minute Order.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to meet and confer with Defendant and file a declaration attesting to such effort at least 16 court days before the new hearing date.

To date, Plaintiff has not filed a meet and confer declaration as ordered. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.

II. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff The Hertz Corporation’s Motion to Reopen Discovery is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 17NWLC11300    Hearing Date: October 29, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

(CCP § 2024.050)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff The Hertz Corporation’s Motion to Reopen Discovery is CONTINUED TO FEB. 4, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 94 for lack of meet and confer.

I. Background

This case was previously assigned to the Norwalk Courthouse as a collection case. On October 17, 2018, Commissioner Sheryl M. Beasley in the Norwalk Courthouse transferred this case to this Department and removed the initial trial of January 2, 2019. (10/17/18 Minute Order.) Plaintiff The Hertz Corporation (“Plaintiff”) brought this action to recover damages for the costs of car repair and related expenses that Defendant Rachal Smith (“Defendant”) failed to pay pursuant to their car rental agreement.

After the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery because discovery had closed, it brought the instant Motion to Reopen Discovery (the “Motion”) on July 17, 2019.

II. Discussion

“Section 2024.050 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes the court to permit a party to reopen discovery. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)” (People v. Landau (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1, 26.) However, such motion to reopen discovery “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP § 2024.050.) This “requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439.)

Here, the Motion fails to include a meet-and-confer declaration as required by CCP § 2024.050(a). While Defendant has been nonresponsive to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, the language of Section 2024.050(a) does not contain a exception to the meet-and-confer requirement for when the responding party is nonresponsive to discovery. “It is a ‘‘cardinal rule of statutory construction’’ [citation] that court must not ‘insert what has been omitted’ from a statute. [Citation.]” (Alex R. v. Superior Court (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 1, 9.) Plaintiff should at least attempt to meet and confer with Defendant as required by Section 2024.050(a). The Court cannot consider the Motion at this time without a meet-and-confer declaration from Plaintiff.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the stated reasons, the Motion is CONTINUED TO FEB. 4, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 94. Plaintiff is ordered to meet and confer with Defendant and file a declaration attesting to such effort at least 16 court days before the new hearing date.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.