Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 21STCV10774, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV10774    Hearing Date: September 27, 2022    Dept: 72

MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATES

Date:               9/27/22 (8:30 AM)

Case:               Daniel Nishiyama v. Melanie Middien et al. (21STCV10774)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Melanie Middien, as Successor Trustee of the Middien-Rader Family Trust seeks a continuance of the trial currently scheduled for October 31, 2022.

As preliminary matter, the Court notes that defendant Melanie Middien’s notice of motion and memorandum of points and authorities are unsigned. These papers are subject to striking unless defendant signs them. (CCP §128.7(a).) Further, the supporting declaration was unsigned and therefore has no evidentiary value. (CCP § 2015.5; ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 198, 217 [declaration not signed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California has no evidentiary value].)  Defendant is forewarned that her unsigned papers may be stricken in the future and her unsigned declarations disregarded.

Defendant seeks to continue trial for an unspecified period of time because plaintiff is purportedly being uncooperative in discovery and because defendant wishes to bring a motion for summary judgment. If plaintiff has been or is being uncooperative in discovery, defendant could have filed motions to compel or seek other relief.  Defendant did not do so.  Although trial is approximately one month away and was scheduled over a year ago on September 8, 2021, defendant did not reserve or schedule a hearing date for any summary judgment motion through the Court’s online reservation system and apparently has not litigated this action to the extent necessary to be in a position to file such a motion in any event.

Litigants in propria persona are held to the same standards as attorneys. (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.)  Defendant is expected to prepare her case for trial and act with reasonable diligence to do so, as is plaintiff.

At the hearing on this motion, defendant should be prepared to discuss specifically what remains to be done to prepare for trial, what plans and preparations she will embark upon to do so with reasonable diligence, and an estimated reasonable time frame for such.  The Court will also hear from plaintiff concerning his readiness for trial.  As for plaintiff’s contention in opposition that the Court should conduct a bench trial in the event the Court continues the trial date over plaintiff’s objection, the Court observes that defendant posted jury fees and has not waived trial by jury in any of the ways set forth in CCP § 631(f).