Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 19STCV42636, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV42636 Hearing Date: March 21, 2024 Dept: 30
Yazmeh, et. al.
vs. Nobel, et. al., Case No.
19STCV42636
Ruling re: Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Continue
Trial
Plaintiffs Naser Yazmeh, Behzad
Yazmeh, and David Yazmeh (collectively, Plaintiffs) move ex parte to continue
the trial and final status conference.
The application is denied.
The instant action was filed on
November 25, 2019 making it over four years old. After a demurrer was sustained, a first
amended complaint was filed on December 10, 2020. The demurrer to the FAC was overruled.
Defendant Sion Nobel answered and cross-complained on August 9, 2021; Defendant
William Somana LLC answered and cross-complained on August 16, 2021. Defendant/cross-complainant Nobel filed his
amended cross-complaint on March 9, 2022; Defendant/Cross-complainant William
Somana filed its amended cross-complaint on May 31, 2022. The amended cross-complaints named new
parties who had to be served. Finally,
on December 21, 2022, the Court set a jury trial for October 23, 2023 with a
final status conference on October 13, 2023.
On September 29, 2023, Defendant
Nobel applied ex parte for a trial continuance.
Defendant’s lead trial counsel informed the Court that she would be in
trial on a case facing dismissal based on the five-year rule. The Court granted the ex parte and continued
the trial to March 25, 2024 and the final status conference to March 15, 2024.
On March 13, 2024, the parties
stipulated to a continuance of the trial date and related discovery and motion
cutoff dates. Counsel indicated that
they wished to participate in mediation.
The stipulation was rejected that same day.
The next day, March 14, 2024,
Defendants filed an ex parte application to continue the trial and related
dates. Like the stipulation, counsel
expressed a desire to engage in settlement negotiations. The ex parte came on for hearing the next
day, March 15, 2024, the same day as the final status conference. No party complied with local rule 3.25 and
the Court had no trial documents of any kind.
The Court denied the ex parte, continued the final status conference to
the trial date of March 25 and set an OSC re sanctions for all parties failure
to file trial documents. Counsel were
ordered to submit their declaration in response to the sanctions order five
days before March 25.
Now, on March 20, in the absence of
trial documents and without filing a declaration regarding the sanctions order,
Plaintiffs have filed an ex parte to continue the trial. Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts for the first
time that he has been suffering from severe back pain beginning in 2022. Plaintiffs’ counsel states he has been
working hard preparing a number of cases for trial but quite obviously he has
done nothing to prepare for this action.
Plaintiffs’ counsel offers no explanation for this but simply submits a
doctor’s note stating he is placed off work for two weeks as of March 15, 2024. Notably, Plaintiffs’ counsel was on LA Court
Connect for the final status conference and ex parte of Defendant’s counsel the
same day he saw his doctor. Plaintiffs’
counsel lists a series of other cases starting in April that he apparently will
be able to try but offers no explanation was to why they should take precedence
over this action. Tellingly, Plaintiffs’
counsel requests a 90-day continuance and assures the Court the partes now have
a path to settlement.
The Court concludes that all
counsel are engaged in gamesmanship as a result of their failure to timely
prepare this action for trial. The
parties have had ample time to engage in settlement discussions and it appears
to the Court this issue is raised now only to avoid the consequences of their
abject failure to prepare for trial.
Accordingly, the ex parte is denied.
Trial date
and final status conference date of March 25, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. stands. The order to show cause regarding sanctions
for failure timely file trial documents will be heard at the same date and
time. Failure to timely file a
declaration in response to the OSC or to adequately explain the failure to
comply with Local Rule 3.25 will result in exclusion of witnesses and exhibits
and waiver of jury trial.