Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 20STCV30482, Date: 2023-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: March 6, 2023

Case Name: Daneshrad v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company, et al.

Case No.: 20STCV24883 

Matter: Motion to Continue Trial Date

Moving Party: Plaintiff Michelle Daneshrad

Responding Party: Defendants Nick Danesh, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage 

Company, Raisa Ress, Gary Ress, and Lissa Ress 

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is denied.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On December 3, 2020, Plaintiff Michelle Daneshrad filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) negligent misrepresentation, (2) constructive fraud, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, (4) professional negligence, (5) non-disclosure of material facts, (6) concealment, (7) intentional misrepresentation, and (8) professional negligence.  

“This action arises from the omissions and misrepresentations made by the defendants in connection with the sale to Petitioner of a real property commonly known as 14818 Round Valley Drive, Sherman Oaks, California (the ‘Property’). Listed and advertised as an investor’s dream, with multiple parcels, permitted construction plans and an existing single-family home on one of the lots, right in Sherman Oaks, nothing about the Property (other than its location) turned out to be true. Following her purchase, Plaintiff learned that the one of the parcels she thought she was buying was not included in the sale, there were no permitted plans, the supposed single family residence was in fact a guest house that could not be leased or sold, and perhaps most significantly, the ‘multiple lots’ were tied, meaning they could not be separately developed. The Property Plaintiff was promised was not remotely the Property she purchased.”  (FAC ¶ 1.)

The trial date was previously set for October 31, 2022, but was continued to November 28, 2022, and then March 20, 2023.   

Plaintiff seeks to again continue the trial date in this action.  Plaintiff states that she “would be irreparably harmed if her Motion for Continuance of Trial is not granted, as her current counsel, Greenacre Law, LLP were retained on August 11, 2022, less than two months before the original trial date of October 17, 2022. Further, her attorney, Mr. Guerrero, did not know when he was retained that, his firm would be losing his primary associate, Edna Fok, Esq., whose last day was on August 18, 2022, a week after Greenacre was retained to litigate this matter. Moreover, there are two (2) additional trials pending for March 21, 2023, and April 4, 2023.”

Plaintiff further contends that “a continuance is necessary to afford Plaintiff a fair hearing in that, Plaintiff’s counsel has not had nearly enough time to pore over the countless documents obtained from prior counsel to assemble a proper exhibit list; Plaintiff lost two (2) expert witnesses weeks before retaining current counsel; a Demand for Exchange of Experts was issued by Counsel’s predecessor without Counsel’s knowledge; and there has only been one continuance requested by the parties in this case thus far.” 

Plaintiff also states that she “had previously filed a claim with her title insurance company for failing to identify the lot-tie. Guerrero Decl. ¶37. As part of that claim, Plaintiff’s title company has been attempting to dissolve the lot-tie for over two (2) years. Id. at ¶39. Upon information and belief, the title insurance company will know whether the lot-tie may be dissolved by the end of December of 2022. Id. at ¶39. The ability or inability to dissolve the lot-tie is a central issue of this litigation and its resolution one way or the other will substantially impact Defendants’ damages and Plaintiff’s theory of the case.”

On February 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief, stating, “[g]ood cause exists to grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial because (1) Adam D.H. Grant of Grant | Shenon, A Professional Law Corporation (“G|S”) substituted into this action on February 7, 2023, (2) Mr. Grant is involved in another trial on March 20, 2023 in a case filed in 2016, an arbitration from March 21, 2023 through March 28, 2023 and a preliminary injunction hearing on March 30, 2023, (3) Plaintiff has been unable to depose Defendants’ expert witnesses and will need sufficient time to move to compel such depositions in advance of trial, and (4) Plaintiff’s former counsel has been unwilling to provide Plaintiff’s complete case file in this action to G|S to allow Mr. Grant to properly prepare for trial.” 

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332 provides, “In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include: (1) The proximity of the trial date; (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; (3)The length of the continuance requested; (4)The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10)Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.”

Plaintiff brought a prior motion to continue the trial date, which the Court granted on November 28, 2022.  The instant Motion is essentially identical to Plaintiff’s prior motion, and it is not apparent that Plaintiff has been diligent since the prior continuance.  Further, it was apparently Plaintiff’s choice to retain new counsel that had conflicting trial matters.  Therefore, the Motion is denied.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.