Tentative Ruling: Partners Personnel - Management Services, LLC v. Centricity Labs

Case Number

24CV00564

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 04/27/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion for Entry of Judgment

Tentative Ruling

Partners Personnel - Management Services, LLC v. Centricity Labs                                                                                                  

Case No. 24CV00564

           

Hearing Date: April 27, 2026                                      

HEARING:              Motion for Entry of Judgment (CCP §664.6)

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Partners Personnel – Management Services, LLC: Cheryl A. Canty, Esper Holdings, Inc.

                                    For Defendant Centricity Labs: No Appearance

                                   

TENTATIVE RULING:

This motion will be continued to June 8, 2026, in this department, at 10:00 a.m. Service of the moving papers and notice of continuance shall be served on defendant on or before May 11, 2026, and proof of such service shall be filed on or before May 15, 2026. Opposition and reply, if any, shall be filed and served as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 based on the June 8, 2026, hearing date.

Background and Analysis:

This action commenced on February 1, 2024, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff Partners Personnel – Management Services, LLC against defendant Centricity Labs for breach of contract, nonpayment on an open book account, and nonpayment on an account stated.

This motion was originally filed on December 3, 2025, and scheduled for hearing on March 16, 2026. Prior to the hearing on the motion, the court posted the following tentative ruling:

“This is a motion to enforce settlement and to enter judgment filed by plaintiff Partners Personnel – Management Services LLC against defendant Centricity Labs.

“Plaintiff filed its complaint in this matter on February 1, 2024; plaintiff filed service of summons and complaint on February 8, showing service on February 2. No appearance was made by defendant. On April 19, plaintiff filed a notice of settlement of the entire action. Nothing occurred in this action until December 3, 2025, when plaintiff filed this motion.

“The proof of service of the motion shows that service was made by mail on the agent for service of process for defendant. However, the settlement agreement that plaintiff seeks to enforce states:

“ ‘All notices, consents, demands or other communications of any type under this Settlement Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed effectively delivered when delivered to the addresses below by reputable overnight courier service for overnight delivery and emailed to the person(s) identified below . . ..’ ” (Canty decl., attachment 1, p. 16.)

“In the declaration supporting this motion, counsel for plaintiff states that on December 3, 2025, she provided notice of this motion by email and “ ‘[i]f receipt is not acknowledged, I will timely effectuate personal service.’ ” (Canty decl., ¶ 12.)

“The proof of service does not show proof of service either by personal service (as stated in the declaration) or by overnight courier (as required by the settlement agreement in addition to electronic service).

“This motion will be continued to April 27, 2026, for the required service. Service of the moving papers and notice of continuance shall be served on defendant on or before March 30, 2026, and proof of such service filed on or before April 3, 2026. Opposition and reply shall be filed and served as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 based on the April 27, 2026, hearing date.” (March 16, 2026, Minute Order.)

Rather than comply with the court’s instructions, on March 20, 2026, plaintiff simply re-filed the motion along with a nearly identical declaration that accompanied the first filing. The only slight difference is that counsel declared that she would “effectuate personal service on or before March 30, 2026 and file proof of service with the court on or before April 3, 2026.” (Canty decl., ¶ 12.)

No proof of service, reflecting proper service, has been filed. The motion still suffers from the same procedural issue that existed at the time of the first hearing.

The motion will be continued once again to allow plaintiff the opportunity to effectuate proper service and file proof of doing so.