Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 20STCV48993, Date: 2022-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV48993    Hearing Date: August 29, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On December 22, 2020, Plaintiffs Maria R. Pulido-Lucero (“Maria”) and Jimmy V. Lucero, Jr. (“Jimmy”) initiated this action against Defendants Hector Pulido (“Hector”) and Wells Fargo. The operative Second Amended Complaint, filed July 21, 2021, alleges: (1) fraud; (2) specific performance; (3) declaratory relief; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) constructive trust; (6) resulting trust; and (7) equitable lien.

            Plaintiffs’ complaint arises from a dispute over a certain parcel of real property in Whittier, California. Plaintiffs allege that Maria’s brother, Defendant Hector, reneged on a promise to convey title to the property to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that Maria had been paying the mortgage on the property to allow their mother, Claudia, to remain on the property.

            On March 1, 2022, Hector, his brother Ricardo, and their mother Claudia, initiated a cross-complaint against Maria and Jimmy. The operative First Amended Cross-Complaint asserts: (1) fraud; (2) trespassing; (3) conversion; and (4) defamation. The FACC alleges that Maria made false demands for unsubstantiated sums of money, remained on the property without permission, stole money from a bank account, and made false statements about Hector and Ricardo to a family friend. The fraud claim has since been stricken.

            On July 27, 2022, Cross-Complainants filed the instant motion to allow a further deposition of Maria and for a continuance of trial. Maria was deposed on March 4, 2022, but her counsel objected to questions and requests for documents regarding bank transactions as being irrelevant because there was no cross-complaint at the time. At the time, Cross-Complainants had not yet served their cross-complaint to Cross-Defendants. Cross-Complainants have since served their cross-complaint and now request a further deposition of Maria because the questions at issue are now relevant to their conversion claim.

LEGAL STANDARD

            Normally, the deposition of a witness is limited to seven hours of total testimony. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.290(a).) However, “[t]he court shall allow additional time, beyond any limits imposed by this section, if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination.” (Ibid.) “In general, the management of discovery matters lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Philippine Exp. & Foreign Loan Guar. Corp. v. Chuidian (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1058, 1084.)

            “Courts have inherent authority to control their own calendars and dockets . . . .” (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 267.) Trial continuances are disfavored and may only be granted upon a showing of good cause. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1332(c).) “In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination.” (Id., subd. (d).)  

DISCUSSION

            Cross-Defendants do not dispute that the matters for which Maria’s deposition are sought are now at issue given service of the cross-complaint. Thus, a further deposition is warranted. Cross-Complainants reasonably request four hours.

            However, Cross-Complainants do not articulate good cause for a trial continuance. Cross-Complainants argue that “the survival of the FACC as to three of the four alleged causes of action, a mere three months and one week before the trial date of October 18, constitutes a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case such that the cross-plaintiffs have not had a reasonable opportunity to develop their case via the discovery process.” (Mtn. 5:7-11.) It is unclear why the survival of their own cross-complaint is a surprise to cross-complainants. Beyond the objections to Maria’s deposition, Cross-Complainants do not claim that they were hindered in discovery in any way.

CONCLUSION

            Cross-Complainants’ motion to allow further deposition is GRANTED. Cross-Complainants’ request for a trial continuance is DENIED.