Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 20STCV21299, Date: 2023-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV21299    Hearing Date: August 8, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Plaintiff Azad Steel, Inc. (Azad Steel) sues Defendants Daryoush Kashani, individually and as trustee of the Bam and Sibs Trust, Tommy’s Remodeling, Inc. (Tommy’s Remodeling), Robert Keshishian, Hilda Tahmasian, and Does 1 through 100 pursuant to a June 5, 2020 Complaint alleging claims of (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Quantum Meruit, (3) Account Stated, (4) Open Book Account, and (5) Intentional Misrepresentation/Fraud against all Defendants.

Hilda Tahmasian sues Daryoush Kashani, Rita Amirian, Bam Bam Enterprises LLC, David-Y-Kashani, Azad Steel, Antouan Ghadimian, and Roes 1 to 100 pursuant to an August 20, 2020 Cross-Complaint alleging claims of (1) Breach of Oral Contract against Daryoush Kashani and (2) Fraud against Daryoush Kashani, Rita Amirian, Bam Bam Enterprises LLC, David-Y-Kashani, Azad Steel, Antouan Ghadimian, and Roes 1 to 100.

Daryoush Kashani sues Azad Steel, Tommy’s Remodeling, Robert Keshishian, Hilda Tahmasian, and Roes 1 through 100 pursuant to a February 26, 2021 First Amended Cross-Complaint (FAXC) alleging claims of (1) Breach of Contract against Tommy’s Remodeling, (2) Negligence against Azad Steel, (3) Fraud against Azad Steel and Tommy’s Remodeling, and (4) Fraud against Robert Keshishian, Hilda Tahmasian, and Tommy’s Remodeling.

The action was originally assigned to Department 57.

Trial was initially set in this action for December 5, 2022.

On November 4, 2022, pursuant to an oral stipulation at a Final Status Conference, Department 57 continued the jury trial to April 3, 2023 and made limited modifications to the discovery cutoff.

On February 17, 2023, Hilda Tahmasian made a peremptory challenge to the judicial officer in Department 57.

On February 23, 2023, Department 57 granted the peremptory challenge and, at the direction of the Supervising Judge, assigned the action to Judge Richardson in Department 40 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse (the Court).

On April 12, 2022, the Court held a Case Management Conference (CMC), at which it continued the jury trial to October 10, 2023 and encouraged the parties to participate in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC).

On July 11, 2023, Daryoush Kashani moved to reopen discovery in this action, solely as to depositions.

On July 25, 2023, Tommy’s Remodeling opposed the motion.

On July 27, 2023, Tommy’s Remodeling filed a substitution of attorney, in which it represented that it would proceed in propria persona.

On August 1, 2023, Daryoush Kashani replied to the opposition.

On August 2, 2023, the Court issued an Order for Tommy’s Remodeling to appear at a September 25, 2023 Order to Show Cause hearing re Default against the corporation in light of authority holding that a corporation cannot represent itself in propria persona.

The motion to reopen discovery is now before the Court.

Motion to Reopen Discovery

Legal Standard

Except as otherwise provided, “any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020(a).) “[A] continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings” unless a motion to reopen discovery is filed and granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (b); Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1586 [“[S]ubdivision (a) of section 2024.050 specifically allows a discovery motion to be heard after the discovery motion cutoff date by providing that ‘the court may grant leave … to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set’”].) Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 provides that “[o]n motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)

“The purpose of imposing a time limit on discovery is to expedite and facilitate trial preparation and to prevent delay. Without a cutoff date, the parties could tie up each other and the trial court in discovery and discovery disputes right up to the eve of trial or beyond. Furthermore, … to be effective the cutoff date must be firm or some litigants will manipulate the proceedings to avoid the cut-off date.” (Beverly Hosp. v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1295.) The reopening of discovery is a matter that is committed to the trial court’s sound discretion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subds. (a), (b).) In exercising that discretion, the trial court considers “any matter relevant to the leave requested,” including:

(1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery;

(2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier;

(3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party; and

(4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)

A motion to reopen discovery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating a good faith effort at informal resolution. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)

If a party properly notices a discovery motion to be heard on or before the cutoff date, the party has a right to have the motion heard. (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc., supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1586; see Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).) If a party notices a discovery motion to be heard after the cutoff date, the court may or may not consider it. (See Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc., supra, at p. 1586.)

Order Reopening Discovery: GRANTED.

Daryoush Kashani moves to reopen discovery as to take depositions of the parties or their principals, which, he represents to the Court, have not taken place. (Mot., pp. 3-5; Mot., Sternberg Decl., ¶ 6.)

Tommy’s Remodeling has opposed the motion. However, because a corporation cannot represent itself in court in propria persona (see Rogers v. Municipal Court (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1314, 1318), and because Tommy’s Remodeling is currently in pro per status (see 7/27/23 Substitution of Attorney), the Court declines to consider the opposition.

None of the other parties in this action have opposed this motion.

Daryoush Kashani appears to have met and conferred with the other parties regarding this motion and its request for relief. (Mot., Sternberg Decl., ¶ 6.)

The Court finds good cause grounds to reopen discovery as to limited depositions only.

The cutoff for deposition proceedings is 30 days before the initial trial date. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).) The initial trial date was set for December 5, 2022. (See 4/6/21 Minutes, p. 5.) 30 days before December 5, 2022 was November 5, 2022, a Saturday, pushing the discovery cutoff on depositions to November 4, 2022.

However, on November 4, 2022, Department 57 held the Final Status Conference prior to the then-scheduled December 5, 222 trial and ordered that “[f]act discovery w[ould] remain open only as to [then] outstanding discovery.” (See 11/4/22 Minutes, p. 1.) The deposition cutoff thus appears to have closed on November 4, 2022 except as to then ongoing requests. The record fails to reflect what discovery was then outstanding.

Considering all the factors set forth above, the Court finds that taking the depositions of one person per party will not prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party. While none of the parties have shown a great deal of diligence, the Court agrees that having this basic discovery will further justice by informing the parties of the merits of their positions, and streamline either settlement or trial of the matter.

Based on these circumstances, and given the lack of opposition other than by Tommy’s Remodeling (which is at risk of being held in default unless they obtain new counsel), the Court will grant the requested relief, but only on the condition that the trial date and FSC date not be continued. The Court will consider argument as to limiting the length of the depositions given the entire worth of the case.

Daryoush Kashani’s motion is thus GRANTED. 

Conclusion

Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Daryoush Kashani’s Motion to Reopen Discovery limited to the deposition of one witness per party is GRANTED.