Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV39325, Date: 2024-03-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV39325 Hearing Date: March 11, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On October 25, 2021, Plaintiffs Francisco Rodriguez (“Francisco Rodriguez”), Karla Rodriguez, and Dyanara Rodriguez (“Dyanara Rodriguez”) filed this action against Defendants Hung Thanh Bui (“Bui”), JP Transport, Inc. (“JP Transport”), Dante Lamont Jackson (“Jackson”), and Does 1-100 for motor vehicle negligence and negligent entrustment.
On October 27, 2021, the Court appointed Francisco Rodriguez to serve as guardian ad litem for minor Dyanara Rodriguez.
On March 2, 2023, Bui filed an answer.
On March 29, 2023, the Court dismissed Jackson without prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
On April 4, 2023, the Court granted Bui’s ex parte application to continue the trial and related dates. The Court continued the trial from April 24, 2023 to March 20, 2024 and ruled that discovery and law and motion cut-off dates would be based on the new trial date.
On June 13, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Pactrans, LLC as Doe 1 (“Pactrans”).
On July 13, 2023, the clerk entered JP Transport’s default.
On July 26, 2023, Pactrans filed an answer.
On February 13, 2024, Bui and Pactrans (“Moving Defendants”) filed a motion to continue the trial and all related dates, to be heard on March 11, 2024. On February 27, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On February 28, 2024, Moving Defendants filed a reply.
On February 29, 2024, Moving Defendants filed an ex parte application to continue the trial and all related dates. The same day, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. The next day, Moving Defendants filed a reply.
On March 1, 2024, the Court continued the trial to May 30, 2024 based on the parties’ stipulation. The Court deferred ruling on Moving Defendants’ request to reopen discovery and related dates to the previously-scheduled March 11, 2024 hearing date.
Trial is currently scheduled for May 30, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Moving Defendants ask the Court to reopen discovery and order that discovery and related dates are based on the May 30, 2024 trial date.
Plaintiffs ask the Court to deny the motion.
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.)
DISCUSSION
Moving Defendants’ motion briefly refers to the need to depose expert witnesses (Motion pp. 3, 5) but does not separately explain why the Court should continue or reopen discovery. Plaintiffs’ opposition and Moving Defendants’ reply papers provide no additional information on this issue.
The Court lacks the information needed to support an informed exercise of discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, subdivision (b). Therefore, the Court denies the motion to continue or reopen discovery.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES as moot the motion of Defendants Hung Thanh Bui and Pactrans, LLC to continue the trial.
The Court DENIES the motion of Defendants Hung Thanh Bui and Pactrans, LLC to reopen discovery.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.