Judge: James L. Crandall, Case: 22-1243136, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

1.    Motion to Stay  

Defendant 2000 Chapman, Inc.’s Motion to Stay Proceedings is DENIED without prejudice.

Defendant 2000 Chapman, Inc. seeks an order staying the proceedings pending the outcome of the pending probate actions (Case No.’s 30- 2022-01244039-PR-TR-CJC and 30-2021-01237389-PR-PW-CJC) filed by Fatemeh Ladan Kamalalavi which it claims will determine whether many of the issues in the instant action are valid to be litigated in this action.

Defendant did not cite a single statute or case in support of its Motion to Stay. It cites Code Civ. Proc. § 128 but this appears to be supporting the proposition that the Court could have heard the Motion to Stay on the date of the Ex Parte hearing.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b), states,

“The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.”

Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc. (Quantum) (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 935, explains, “Rule 3.1113 rests on a policy-based allocation of resources, preventing the trial court from being cast as a tacit advocate for the moving party's theories by freeing it from any obligation to comb the record and the law for factual and legal support that a party has failed to identify or provide. On the record in this case, the trial court was justified in declining to look beyond that failure.”

The court recognizes that California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b) applies to the moving party’s memorandum.

Because Defendant failed to cite legal authority, the Court should not act as a tacit advocate based on Quantum.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant 2000 Chapman, Inc.’s Motion to Stay Proceedings is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving defendant to give notice.

2.    Case Management Conference

           The court will set a trial date.

Future hearing dates:

8/18/22 – Motion to Deem Complex

9/8/22 – (2) Demurrer/Mtn. to Strike/Mtn. to Quash Subpoena