Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV19633, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling
All parties are
urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to
see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If
you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in
advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather
than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be
advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the
hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the
matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in
the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.
If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT
WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to
argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of
your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request
the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the
hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 21STCV19633 Hearing Date: November 27, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On May 25, 2021, Plaintiff John Loy (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Jake Morris (“Morris”), Inland, Inland Kenworth, Inc., Inland Lease & Rental Inc., and Does 1-15 for motor vehicle tort.
On January 3, 2022, Morris and Inland Lease & Rental, Inc. dba Inland Paclease (erroneously sued and served as Inland, Inland Kenworth Inc., and Inland Lease & Rental, Inc.) filed answers.
On June 24, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Elite Construction Equipment, LLC (“Elite”) as Doe 1.
On July 13, 2022, the Court dismissed Morris, Inland, Inland Kenworth Inc., and Inland Lease and Rental without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On July 25, 2022, Elite filed an answer.
On September 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to continue the trial and related dates to be heard on November 27, 2023. No opposition was filed.
Also on September 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application asking the Court to shorten time to hear the motion to continue the trial or, in the alternative, to continue the trial and related dates.
On September 19, 2023, the Court granted the ex parte application in part and continued the trial to August 1, 2024. The Court denied without prejudice the ex parte application’s request to continue or reopen discovery.
Trial is currently scheduled for August 1, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff requests that the Court continue the trial and continue discovery to trail the new trial date.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020 provides:
“(a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.
“(b) Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 provides:
“(a) On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(b) In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following:
“(1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery.
“(2) The 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) Any 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.
“(4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.
“(c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to extend or to reopen discovery, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 provides: “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s motion to continue the trial is moot because, at the ex parte hearing on September 19, 2023, the Court continued the trial to August 1, 2024. The Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte request to continue or reopen discovery without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery (contained in Plaintiff's motion to continue the trial) does not satisfy the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 because it does not include a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).) Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 provides: “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” Although Plaintiff’s counsel states that “Counsel have spent substantial amounts of time coordinating the depositions” (Popka Dec. ¶ 10), counsel does not describe a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve the issues presented by the request to reopen discovery.
The Court denies the motion without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Plaintiff John Loy’s motion to continue the trial as moot.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff John Loy’s motion to reopen discovery without prejudice.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.