Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC08083, Date: 2024-06-05 Tentative Ruling
*** Please Note that the Judicial Officer Presiding in Department 25 is Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong ***
If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.
Case Number: 22STLC08083 Hearing Date: June 5, 2024 Dept: 25
Hearing Date: Wednesday, June 5, 2024
Case Name: RICHARD
DAHL vs PURSCHE - GILLINGHAM, LLC, et al.
Case No.: 22STLC08083
Motion: Motion for Extending Discovery and
Motion Cutoff Dates to Correspond with the Current Trial Date of 11/15/24
Moving Party: Defendant
Pursche – Gillingham, LLC’s
Responding Party: None
Notice: OK
Tentative Ruling: Defendant
Pursche - Gillingham, LLC’s Motion
for Extending Discovery, and Motion Cutoff Dates to Correspond with the Current
Trial Date of 11/15/24 is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
This is a
civil rights case in which serial filer Plaintiff Richard Dahl (“Plaintiff”)
seeks damages for a purported violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights
Act. Specifically, Plaintiff claims he had “difficulty dining at the public
accommodation because the outdoor dining tables were not wheelchair
accessible.” (Complaint ¶ 5).
On December
5, 2022, Plaintiff Richard Dahl filed the complaint alleging violation of the
Unruh Civil Rights Act.
On March
29, 2024, defense counsel moved this Court, via ex parte application, for an
order continuing the trial and trial related dates. The Court granted
Defendant’s request, in part, denying its request to continue the trial related
dates. In its ruling, the Court noted a request to extend the trial related
deadlines were to be brought via noticed motion.
On April
25, 2024, Defendant Pursche-Gillingham filed the instant motion.
On May 30,
2024, Defendant Pursche-Gillingham, LLC filed a notice of non-opposition. As of
June 3, 2024, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
MOVING PARTY
POSITION
Defendant
Pursche-Gillingham, LLC ( “Defendant”) seeks an Order extending the discovery
and motion cutoff dates to correspond to the current trial date of November 15,
2024.
OPPOSITION
None.
REPLY
None.
ANALYSIS
I. Motion for Extending Discovery and Motion
Cutoff Dates to Correspond with the Current Trial Date of 11/15/24
A.
Meet and Confer
Here, on March 27, 2024, Defense counsel met and
conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding a trial continuance. (Aragon Decl.
¶ 4; Ex. A.) Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to the request, in part, but did not
agree to continue the trial related dates. (Id.) Therefore, the Court
finds that the meet and confer requirement was met.
B. Legal Standard
“It is . .
. well established that courts have fundamental inherent equity, supervisory,
and administrative powers, as well as inherent power to control litigation
before them.” Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 953,
967, as modified on denial of reh'g (Oct. 22, 1997).
The Court
“may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion
concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date.” Cal. Code Civ.
P. § 2024.050(a). In deciding whether to exercise its discretion to grant a
motion to complete discovery, courts shall take into consideration “any matter
relevant to the leave requested,” including, but not limited, to: (1) The
necessity and the reasons for the discovery[,] (2) [t]he diligence or lack of
diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery
motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the
discovery motion was not heard earlier[,] (3) [a]ny likelihood that permitting
the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going
to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or
result in prejudice to any other party[, and] (4) The length of time that has
elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the
trial of the action. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2024.050(b)(1–4).
“[D]ecisions
about whether to grant a continuance or extend discovery ‘must be made in an
atmosphere of substantial justice. When the two policies collide head-on, the
strong public policy favoring disposition on the merits outweighs the competing
policy favoring judicial efficiency.’ What is required is balance.” Hernandez
v. Superior Court, 115 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246; accord, Oliveros v.
County of Los Angeles, (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1396; Bahl v. Bank
of America, (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 389, 398; Estate of Meeker, (1993)
13 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1105-06.
1. Merits
Here, Defendant
asserts that the pending discovery is necessary to allow defendant to properly
prepare its defenses for trial because Defendant was forced to seek new
representation because of mass layoffs of its previous firm. (Mot. at p. 5.)
Predecessor counsel did not initiate discovery or move the case forward.
(Aragon Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendant acted as quickly as possible to bring in new
counsel and for counsel to get up to speed on the status of this case and
others for which Defendant was previously represented by another firm, but it took
time. (Id.) Defendant also argues
that it has been as diligent as the circumstances have allowed to obtain the
information sought because for reasons outside of Defendant or Defendant’s
counsel’s control, and the reasons why Defendant required new counsel, there
has been a delay in conducting necessary discovery through no fault of any
party. (Id. at ¶ 3.)
The current
trial date is November 15, 2024, but the discovery and motion cutoff dates are
May 6, 2024, and May 20, 2024. (Id. at ¶ 6.) On March 29, 2024,
Defendant propounded upon Plaintiff Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special
Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One. (Id.
at ¶ 7.) On April 3, 2024, Plaintiff served boilerplate objections to
Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Defendants Ono
Hawaiian BBQ, Inc., Apelila and J, LLC and Joshua Liang also propounded
discovery upon Plaintiff, moving Defendant and Defendant Upside Crenshaw
Holding, LLC. Co-Defendant’s discovery includes Requests for Production of
Documents and Requests for Admissions. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Responses to the
pending discovery requests are due by all parties on May 3, 2024. (Id.
at ¶ 10.) Defendant anticipates meet and confer efforts and law and motion
related to the Plaintiff’s written discovery responses. (Id. at ¶ 11.) However,
the cutoff date has passed. (Id.)
The Court notes
that Defendant would effectively be precluded from its right to conduct the
investigation, complete discovery, and prepare for trial, without a continuance
of discovery related cut-off dates. Thus, the Court finds good cause to grant
leave to complete discovery proceedings.
Plaintiff did not file an
opposition which shows that Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by the extension.
III. Conclusion
In all, Defendant Pursche -
Gillingham, LLC’s unopposed Motion for Extending Discovery and Motion Cutoff
Dates to Correspond with the Current Trial Date of 11/15/24 is GRANTED.
Moving
party is ordered to give notice and to attach a copy of the Court's Tentative
Ruling , as an exhibit to said notice, as the final order of the Court.