Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV06312, Date: 2025-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: March 25, 2025

Case Name: Lavi v. Shahamfar, et al.

Case No.: 22STCV03397

Matter: Motion for Reconsideration

Moving Party: Defendant Suits America, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff David Lavi

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is denied.

Moving party to give notice.

The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect.  If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above.

This is an employment and wage and hour lawsuit.

On December 30, 2024, the Court continued the trial date in this matter from January 6, 2025, to April 7, 2025, pursuant to the ex parte application of Plaintiff David Lavi.

On or around January 30, 2025, the Court continued the trial date from April 7, 2025, to July 7, 2025.

Defendant Suits America, Inc. seeks for the Court to reconsider its order granting a trial continuance.  Defendant contends that “Before Suits had the opportunity to have its opposition filed and considered by this Court, the Court granted the application and continued the trial date to April 7, 2025, and re-opened discovery without input from Defendant.”  Defendant further argues that “The efforts Defendants spent in preparing for trial, the dilatory actions of Plaintiff in preparing for trial and obtaining a handwriting expert and why discovery should not be reopened as Plaintiff has sought to request hundreds of discovery questions after two years of litigation and the closure of discovery a week before trial was to begin. These bad faith tactics should not be rewarded by this court particularly with the number of parties involved in this case and the preparation needed to begin trial.”

Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a) provides, “When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.”

Given the passage of time, the primary purpose of the Motion seems to be to resist the opening of discovery tethered to the continuance of the trial date.  As is predictable, there are now six discovery motions pending.  

Defendant contends that “Even if the Severance Agreement was produced in December, Plaintiff had over a month to retain an expert handwriting expert, yet he waited until the twilight of trial to file his ex parte motion. This continuance is a ploy to re-open discovery and probe for more information even after he received responses to his discovery requests as evidenced by the extensive discovery propounded days after the court prematurely granted Plaintiff’s motion.”

This is not persuasive.  As Plaintiff points out, “The so-called ‘severance agreement,’ which the Defendants suddenly located just before trial, reflects what Defendants claim is Plaintiff’s signature. Not only does Plaintiff adamantly deny that he signed that document (or ever saw it before), but it radically changes the Defendants’ statement under oath regarding Plaintiff’s alleged independent contractor.”

Even had the Court considered Defendant’s arguments presented here, the Court would have still reopened discovery so that information could be gathered about the severance agreement. 

Therefore, the Motion is denied.

Moving party to give notice.