Judge Cherol J. Nellon, Case Number: 19STCV43813, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 19STCV43813, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV43813 Hearing Date: April 2, 2024 Dept: 14

Younan v Antoun

Case Background

Plaintiff alleges that she obtained a judgment against Defendant Sameh Helima (“Helima”) back in 2006, which she renewed in 2016. She claims that the Defendant then transferred his real property into his mother’s name in an effort to avoid the judgment.

On December 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed her Complaint to Set Aside Fraudulent Transfer against Defendants Helima, Flora Antoun (“Antoun”), and DOES 1-25.

On March 3, 2020, Defendant Helima filed his Answer.

On May 5, 2023, Defendant Antoun filed her Answer.

On October 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed an “Amendment to Complaint” substituting Defendant Pacific Hardwood Flooring (“Pacific Hardwood”) in lieu of DOE 1. On November 27, 2023, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Defendant Pacific Hardwood, without prejudice.

Jury Trial is currently set for April 2, 2024.

Instant Motion

Plaintiff now moves this court for an order continuing trial, and all related deadlines, by six months.

Decision

The motion is GRANTED, in part. Trial is continued to April 15, 2024, at 9:00 am. Final Status Conference is continued to April 2, 2024, at 10:00 am. All trial counsel and any unrepresented parties are to be present in person at the Final Status Conference. Discovery deadlines will NOT track with the new trial date.

Discussion

California Rules of Court Rule 3.1332(a) provides that trial dates are to be treated as firm. However, Rule 3.1332(c) provides that, although continuances are “disfavored,” requests should be considered on an individual basis. That subsection also includes a non-exhaustive list of possible grounds for a continuance.

Plaintiff brings this motion on essentially one basis: that discovery is incomplete. This appeals to Rule 3.1332(c)(6), which refers to an “excused inability” to obtain essential material evidence “despite diligent efforts.” Plaintiff has not established good cause for a continuance under that rule.

This case is over four years old. Plaintiff served Defendant Hemila in 2020, and Defendant Antoun in 2022. The propriety of service on Defendant Antoun was established by this court’s ruling on her motion to quash on December 15, 2022. There has been plenty of time to conduct discovery, and over the last year there should have been some urgency to doing so.

Plaintiff offers a series of explanations as to why discovery has not been completed. The first is that Defense counsel told Plaintiff’s counsel that he would be withdrawing from the case, which led Plaintiff’s counsel to delay pursuit of discovery. Defense counsel did reserve three different motions to be relieved as counsel, but ultimately none were filed. The prospect that opposing counsel will soon be leaving the case is not a sufficient reason to cease attempting discovery altogether.

The second explanation is that Plaintiff filed motions to compel, and that in response to those motions, Defense counsel falsely represented to the court that responses had been served. Plaintiff did file several motions to compel, which were heard on October 27, 2023, and denied as moot due to the service of supplemental responses. If Plaintiff believed those responses were still inadequate, he should have met and conferred with opposing counsel and sought an Informal Discovery Conference. No effort to do that appears in the court’s records.

Finally, Plaintiff complains that Defense has simply been stonewalling discovery by refusing to meet and confer and refusing to provide deposition dates. Plaintiff is not without resources to end any such stonewalling. But if it is true that Defense has been asked for information or party depositions and has refused to provide them, Plaintiff’s remedy at this point is a motion in limine to exclude or limit the evidence Defense may put on.

This case must go to trial. However, because the court is currently engaged in a trial which will not be over by April 2, this case will be put over for two weeks. The court has a series of old cases set in the coming six weeks, but this case is near the front of the line and counsel should be ready to proceed.

Conclusion

Failure to conduct discovery in a case of this age does not constitute good cause for a continuance. However, a brief continuance is in order because the court is engaged in a trial which will not be concluded by the date on which this case is set to commence. Therefore, the motion is GRANTED, in part. Trial is continued to April 15, 2024, at 9:00 am. Final Status Conference is continued to April 2, 2024, at 10:00 am. All trial counsel and any unrepresented parties are to be present in person at the Final Status Conference. Discovery deadlines will NOT track with the new trial date.