Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV11473, Date: 2023-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11473    Hearing Date: September 25, 2023    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On April 5, 2022, Plaintiff Darren Dixon (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants The Medici Apartments, GHP Management (“GHP”), Scorpion Securities (“Scorpion”), Christopher Sims (“Sims”), Parya Rahni (“Rahni”), Sharwana Garcia (“Garcia”), Princess Williams (“Williams”), Faith (LNU) (“Faith (LNU)”), Dewana Givens (“Givens”), and Does 1-100 for premises liability, negligence, assault and battery and conversion. 

On July 5, 2022, Scorpion filed an answer. 

On July 15, 2022, GHP filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Scorpion, Sims, Rahni, Garcia, Williams, Faith (LNU), Givens, and Roes 1-20 for express indemnity, equitable apportionment and declaratory relief. On December 13, 2022, Sims and Scorpion filed answers. 

On August 9, 2022, Sims filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. 

On July 28, 2023, GHP filed a motion to continue the trial, the final status conference, and all pre-trial related deadlines, to be heard on September 25, 2023.  No opposition has been filed. 

Trial is currently scheduled for January 23, 2024. 

On September 13, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendants Bria Beardsley as Doe 2, Freddie Brown as Doe 3, Seth Burgess as Doe 4, Kevin Cater as Doe 5, James Cuoco as Doe 6, Dan Castanada as Doe 7, Robert Castalan as Doe 8, Jorge Calvillo as Doe 9, James Colbert as Doe 10, Karla Farias1 [sic] as Doe 11, John Gaudino as Doe 12, Enrique Guerrero as Doe 13, and Evan Luster as Doe 14. 

Also on September 13, 2023, the Court granted in part the ex parte application of Scorpion and Sims to continue the trial and related dates.  The Court continued the trial to January 23, 2024, and continued the final status conference to January 9, 2024.  The Court denied the request to continue or reopen discovery without prejudice. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

GHP requests that the Court continue the trial to a date on or after January 16, 2024, and continue the final status conference and all pre-trial related deadlines to correspond to the new trial date. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

          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 

On September 13, 2023, the Court continued the trial to January 23, 2024, and continued the final status conference to January 9, 2024.  Therefore, GHP's request to continue the trial and final status conference is moot. 

GHP also asks the Court to continue all pre-trial related deadlines.  Although GHP’s motion does not cite Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, the statute governs the Court’s consideration of requests to continue or reopen discovery.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (b) [“Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings”].) 

A motion to reopen discovery under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 must be “accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)  “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.) 

In support of GHP’s motion, GHP submitted a declaration from its counsel stating in part: “Prior to proceeding with this Motion, my office discussed the requested trial continuance with counsels for Plaintiff and Scorpion. Scorpion does not oppose a trial continuance while Plaintiff’s counsel has indicated he will not stipulate to a continuance at this time.”  (Frankenberger Dec. ¶ 13.)  The declaration addresses only the issue of a trial continuance and shows that GHP discussed a trial continuance with counsel for two of the other parties.  The declaration does not show that GHP, Plaintiff, and Scorpion attempted to resolve the issue of continuing or reopening discovery or that GHP attempted to address this issue with the other parties that had appeared before GHP filed its motion. 

Because GHP’s motion does not comply with the requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, subdivision (a), to provide a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040, the Court denies the request to continue or reopen discovery. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES as moot Defendant GHP Management’s motion to continue the trial. 

The Court DENIES Defendant GHP Management’s request to continue or reopen discovery. 

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.