Estate of Rosa Pleitez v. Miles Chemical Company, Inc., et al.

(Chatsworth Courthouse: Dept. F47) September 2, 2026

Date: 9/2/26 Case #21CHCV00794 MOTION TO DISMISS Motion filed on 7/22/26. MOVING PARTY: Defendant Morgan Gallacher, Inc. (Doe 12) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Estate of Rosa Pleitez, by and through her husband, Rigoberto Pleitez NOTICE: ok RELIEF REQUESTED: An order dismissing Plaintiff Estate of Rosa Pleitez, by and through her husband, Rigoberto Pleitez's Fourth Amended Complaint due to Plaintiff's unreasonable and unjustified delay in service of process pursuant to CCP 583.250, 583.410 and 583.420. RULING: The motion is denied.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY This action arises out of Plaintiff Estate of Rosa Pleitez, by and through her husband, Rigoberto Pleitez's claim that from 10/13/19 through at least 9/21/20, Decedent Rosa Pleitez (Decedent) was exposed to chemicals and caustic products produced, manufactured, distributed and/or sold by Defendant Miles Chemical Company, Inc. (Miles Chemical), Macdermid Enthone, Inc. (Macdermid) and others while employed as a janitor for Carbonite Industries in Riverside, California.

It is alleged that Decedent developed catastrophic interstitial lung disease with major injury and disability that affected her ability to work and support herself and her family and ultimately, was a substantial factor in causing her death on or about 3/26/22.

On 10/8/21, Plaintiffs Rosa Pleitez and Rigoberto Pleitez filed the original complaint in this action asserting causes of action against certain named defendants and Does 1-200 for: (1) Strict Liability - Design Defect, (2) Strict Liability - Failure to Warn, (3) Negligence, (4) Breach of Implied Warranty and (5) Loss of Consortium. As against Doe 13, the complaint alleged that "unknown chemicals and caustic products sold by DOES 1 through 200 contain recognized contaminants and caustic substances which are scientifically known to cause and/or contribute to the development of interstitial lung disease and directly caused and/or contributed to the development of Plaintiff's interstitial lung disease." (Complaint P.P.5, 20, 42-43).

On 5/24/23, following Decedent's death, the Estate of Rosa Pleitez, by and through her husband, Rigoberto Pleitez (Plaintiff) substituted in for Decedent in the First Amended Complaint (FAC). A new cause of action for wrongful death was added in the First Amended Complaint and the breach of implied warranty and loss of consortium causes of action were eliminated. The claims for strict liability - design defect, strict liability - failure to warn and negligence were realleged against Does 1-200 under the 2 nd cause of action titled survival action in the First Amended Complaint.

On 11/12/25, Plaintiff filed the operative Fourth Amended Complaint (4AC) alleging causes of action for negligence for wrongful death, strict products liability and survival action.

On 1/6/26, Plaintiff filed a Doe amendment naming Morgan Gallacher Inc. (Morgan Gallacher) in place of Doe 12. The basis of the allegations against Morgan Gallacher as Doe 12 remain unchanged in the Fourth Amended Complaint. (See Complaint P.P. 18, 20, 38, 48, 53; 4AC P.P.6, 24). Morgan Gallacher was served with the Fourth Amended Complaint on 1/22/26. (See Proof of Service filed 1/26/26).

On 3/20/26, Morgan Gallacher answered the Fourth Amended Complaint.

On 7/22/26, Morgan Gallacher filed and served the instant motion seeking an order dismissing Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint due to Plaintiff's unreasonable and unjustified delay in service of process pursuant to CCP 583.250, 583.410 and 583.420. Plaintiff has not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion.

ANALYSIS Due to its general appearance in this action (by filing an answer on 3/20/26), Morgan Gallacher cannot move for mandatory dismissal based on Plaintiff's failure to serve the summons on it within 3 years after commencing the action against it. See CCP 583.210(a); CCP 583.220. Therefore, Morgan Gallacher's citation to CCP 583.250 regarding mandatory dismissal is without merit. (See Motion, p.1:28, p.2:5-7, p.5:20-23).

Morgan Gallacher also moves for discretionary dismissal pursuant to CCP 583.410(a) and 583.420(a)(1). (See Motion, p.4:25, p.5:19-20, p.6:4-5). CRC 3.1342(a) provides: "A party seeking dismissal of a case under Code of Civil Procedure 583.410-583.430 must serve and file a notice of motion at least 45 days before the date set for hearing of the motion. The party may, with the memorandum, serve and file a declaration stating facts in support of the motion. The filing of the notice of motion must not preclude the opposing party from further prosecution of the case to bring it to trial." (emphasis added)

Here, the instant motion was served and filed on 7/22/26 which is only 42 days before the 9/2/26 hearing date. Notably, Morgan Gallacher cites to CRC 3.1342(e) in the motion but failed to timely file and serve the motion pursuant to CRC 3.1342(a). (See Motion, p.8:18). Based on Morgan Gallacher's failure to timely serve and file the instant motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff had no obligation to respond to the motion.

CONCLUSION The motion is denied.

Case Number: 25CHCV00856 Hearing Date: September 2, 2026 Dept: F47 Dept. F47 Date: 9/2/26 Case #25CHCV00856 MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL Motion filed on 6/29/26. MOVING ATTORNEY: Nathan Mubasher CLIENTS: Defendants Gabriel O. Castillo; Staff Agency LLC; Stockdale Holding LLC; Best Choice Hospice Service, Inc.; Devoted Guardians Hospice; and Ardor Care Hospice RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Rosalva G. Kreuz RELIEF REQUESTED: An order relieving Nathan Mubasher as counsel for Defendants Gabriel O. Castillo; Staff Agency LLC; Stockdale Holding LLC; Best Choice Hospice Service, Inc.; Devoted Guardians Hospice; and Ardor Care Hospice. RULING: The motion is denied without prejudice.

On 6/29/26, attorney Nathan Mubasher filed the instant motion seeking an order relieving him as counsel for Defendants Gabriel O. Castillo; Staff Agency LLC; Stockdale Holding LLC; Best Choice Hospice Service, Inc.; Devoted Guardians Hospice; and Ardor Care Hospice. On the same date, attorney Mubasher filed a proof of service which indicates that on 6/29/26, the motion was electronically served on counsel for Plaintiff Rosalva G. Kreuz.

On 8/20/26, Plaintiff Rosalva G. Kreuz (Plaintiff) filed and served an opposition to the motion. On 8/26/26, attorney Mubasher filed and served a reply to the opposition. The proof of service attached to the reply also indicates that it was electronically served only on counsel for Plaintiff.

All documents in support of a motion to be relieved as counsel must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case. See CRC 3.1362(d). Here, at the time the original motion papers were filed, attorney Mubasher did not file a proof of service showing that the motion papers were served on the clients. Additionally, No. 4.b. and No.4.k. in the notice of motion, reflecting that some of the clients are corporations or LLCs, are not marked. Further, No.6 in the proposed order does not set forth all of the necessary information for the clients.

On 8/26/26, attorney Mubasher filed amended motion papers purportedly addressing the foregoing defects in the motion. Rather than denying the motion without prejudice, attorney Mubasher requests that the hearing be continued to a date