Ruskey vs. Salman

2. Woodson vs. The Estate of Rebecca Woodson (Dec’d)

24-01393092

1. Demurrer to Complaint 2. Case Management Conference

O/C Dismissal Filed 3. Ruskey vs. Salman

24-01416981 Demurrer

NTS filed August 6, 2026. ROA 162

OSC re: Dismissal of Settled Case set for December 3, 2026. ROA 165

4. Nguyen vs. Ottoni

25-01535128

1. Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories 2. Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories 3. Motion to Compel Production 4. Motion to Deem Facts Admitted

Plaintiff Leeanna Nguyen’s Motions to Compel Defendant Bruno Ottoni’s responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Production of Documents, Set One; and Motion to Deem Request for Admissions, Set One are DENIED.

Discovery must be served on a party by mail, Express Mail, overnight mail, and electronic means at the party’s last known office or residential address. (Code Civ. Proc. §, 1013.) When a party is represented by counsel, the service of papers, when required, must be upon the attorney instead of the party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1015.)

On January 20, 2026, prior to appearing in this action, Plaintiff served Defendant with the discovery by mail at 7415 Blackhawk Circle, Buena Park, CA 90620. Defendant asserts he did not reside at that address at the time of service. Rather, his address was 8830 Academy Drive, Unit B, Buena Park, CA 90621.

Defendant appeared in this action on February 10, 2026, by serving an Answer through his counsel of record. On February 12, 2026, Plaintiff emailed Defendant’s counsel with a “courtesy copy” of the discovery. Therefore, Plaintiff asserts Defendant has waived any service defect by accepting service through his counsel.

A courtesy copy sent to counsel does not constitute an independent act of service. (See Hern v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1204- 1205 [the trial court’s direction to provide a courtesy copy did not extend time for the attorney to respond to the summons and complaint