Case Number: BC634452 Hearing Date: February 21, 2018 Dept: 46

Case Number: BC634452
ALBA CARCAMO VS EDWARD KOHAMIN ET AL

Filing Date: 09/20/2016
Case Type: Asbestos Property Damage

02/21/2018
Motion for Summary Judgment

TENTATIVE RULING

Kohanim and Mega Holdings, LLC Motion for Summary Judgment is continued to 5/8/2018 and moving party is ordered to give further notice. Defendants are ordered to re-serve their motion by express mail or overnight delivery on or before 2/21/18 and file proof of service thereof with the court; if Defendant’s comply, notice will be found proper for a hearing on this motion at the date of the Final Status Conference. CCP §437c(a)(2).See discussion showing inadequate notice.

DISCUSSION

Defendants base their MSJ on RFAs that were deemed admitted by order of this court on 8/10/17. The RFAs were deemed admitted despite Plaintiff’s filing of non-compliant responses with the court two months earlier, on 6/13/17. (Minute Order of 8/10/17). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed papers purporting to be an “Application for Reconsideration” and a “Motion to Show Cause,” apparently seeking to vacate the order of 8/10/17, though she did not reserve any hearing date through the Court Reservation System as required and no hearings took place. Each of those three filings was captioned as follows:

“Alba Carcamo In Pro Per

23823 Malibu Rd [Suite No. x]

Malibu, CA 90265”

As Defendants noted in their moving papers related to the RFA, 23823 Malibu Road is the address of a shopping center. (Declaration of Karina M. Lobeto Exhibit I). In two of her three filings, Plaintiff has listed a different suite number: first it was No. 50-150 (“Answers Defendants’ Requests for Admissions” filed and served 6/13/17), then it was No. 50-159 (“Application for Reconsideration” filed and served 8/14/17 and “Motion to Show Cause” filed and served 8/16/17).[1] [2] Rather than serve Plaintiff at either of those addresses, and even though aware that Plaintiff no longer receives mail at the addresses listed on either the original Complaint or the FAC (Declaration of Karina M. Lobeto Exhibit I), Defendants attempted to mail-serve Plaintiff at those addresses. Notice was therefore improper.

This court has no power to shorten the 75-day notice period for summary judgments without a waiver from both sides; the mandatory cure for any defect in notice is to start the notice period anew. CCP § 437c(a)(2); Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 C.A.4th 1258, 1267-68. 75 days from 2/21/18 is 5/6/18; the Final Status Conference in this case is set for 5/8/18. So, if Defendants serve their motion by express mail or overnight delivery on or before 2/21/18, notice will be proper for a hearing on this motion at the date of the Final Status Conference. CCP § 437c(a)(2).

Therefore, Ds should be ordered to re-serve the motion, by express mail or overnight delivery, at the two addresses most recently provided by Plaintiff (viz. 23823 Malibu Rd. Suite 50-150 and 23823 Malibu Rd. Suite 50-159), on or before 2/21/18.

The motion is CONTINUED to 5/8/18.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

___________________________
Frederick C. Shaller, Judge

[1] P has also filed a request for continuance here asserting that she did not receive notice of the hearing until 1/23/18, in the process of making a general search of the court’s web site. The caption for that request lists the same address, but provides no suite number.

[2] Suite No. 50-150 is the address of an active attorney, Cary Todd Epstein (SB No. 151011), but there is no reason to believe he is in any way associated with this action.