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.
*******1300
12/27/2017
Pending - Other Pending
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
THOMAS D. LONG
THE HERTZ CORPORATION
SMITH RACHAL
ANDRADE CHRISTOPHER
2/21/2018: Answer
2/22/2018: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)
8/22/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities
8/22/2018: Declaration (name extension) - of Christopher Andrade
8/22/2018: Motion for Order (name extension) - Compelling Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Form Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions
10/11/2018: Stipulation for the Appointment of Court Commissioner as Temporary Judge
10/17/2018: Minute Order - (Court Order transferring case Upon review, the Court finds t...)
10/17/2018: Certificate of Mailing for - Minute Order (Court Order transferring case Upon review, the Court finds t...) of 10/17/2018
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
11/27/2018: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Christopher Andrade
12/26/2018: Response (name extension) - Defendant Rachal Smith Response to Plaintiff The Hertz Corporation Request for Admission Set One
12/26/2018: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail
1/24/2018: Proof of Personal Service
1/10/2018: Proof of Service - No Service
12/27/2017: Summons - on Complaint
12/27/2017: Complaint
12/27/2017: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
12/27/2017: Order to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740)
Case reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 94 - Hon. James E. Blancarte; Reason: Inventory Transfer
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
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
Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)
Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...) of 01/08/2019; Filed by: Clerk
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
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
Defendant Rachal Smith Response to Plaintiff The Hertz Corporation Request for Admission Set One; Filed by: RACHAL SMITH (Defendant)
Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by: RACHAL SMITH (Defendant); As to: THE HERTZ CORPORATION (Plaintiff); After Substituted Service of Summons & Complaint ?: No
Declaration of Christopher Andrade; Filed by: THE HERTZ CORPORATION (Plaintiff)
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
Proof of Service - No Service; Filed by:
Complaint; Filed by: THE HERTZ CORPORATION (Plaintiff); As to: RACHAL SMITH (Defendant)
Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: THE HERTZ CORPORATION (Plaintiff)
Summons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk
Order to Show Cause Hearing/Trial Date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.740); Filed by: Clerk
Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
Case assigned to Hon. Thomas D. Long in Department B Norwalk Courthouse
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
The case is placed in special status of: Collections Case (CCP 3.740)
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.