Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 19STCV27185, Date: 2023-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 19STCV27185, Date: 2023-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV27185 Hearing Date: January 24, 2024 Dept: 26

Cabral v. Quintana, et al.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO COMPLETE OR REOPEN DISCOVERY

(CCP §§ 2030.300; 2033.290)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Quint Tax Services Corp. and Carlos M. Quintana’s Motion to Reopen Discovery, Continue Trial and Pretrial Dates is GRANTED. TRIAL IS CONTINUED TO APRIL 24, 2024 AT 8:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT WITH DISCOVERY AND MOTION CUTOFFS TO FOLLOW THE NEW TRIAL DATE. DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On August 1, 2019, Plaintiffs Antonio Cabral and Patricia Cabral (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action for trespass, trespass to chattles, and conversion against Defendant Carlos M. Quintana (“Defendant Quintana”). Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on March 5, 2020 adding Quint Tax Services Corporation (“Defendant Quint”) as a defendant, and causes of action for nuisance and negligence. Defendant Quint filed an answer and Cross-Complaint on March 11, 2021. A First Amended Cross-Complaint was filed against Plaintiffs and Rise Again Printing, LLC on September 24, 2021.

On February 9, 2022, the Court set a trial date of September 11, 2023. Plaintiffs filed a motion to reclassify the action to the limited jurisdiction court on July 28, 2023. On August 23, 2023, the Court granted the motion to reclassify and the case was reassigned to the limited jurisdiction court on August 31, 2023. (Notice of Case Reassignment, 08/31/23.) On October 2, 2023, the Court continued the trial date but did not reopen the cutoffs for discovery or discovery motions. (Minute Order, 10/02/23.) On the same date, Defendants filed and served the instant Motion to Reopen Discovery, and Continue Trial and Pretrial Deadlines. Plaintiff filed an opposing declaration on January 10, 2024.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 allows the Court to extend or reopen discovery at its discretion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b)) In determining whether to grant such relief, the Court should consider (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; 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)

Defendants contend they are still seeking responses to discovery regarding Plaintiff’s damages. (Motion, Jackson Decl., ¶¶5, 11-12, 16.) Following numerous meet and confer efforts with Plaintiffs’ counsel to obtain substantive discovery responses from July to September 2023, defense counsel learned in late September 2023 that the initial discovery deadline had closed. (Id. at ¶¶5, 11-12, 16-17.) Defendants promptly filed the instant Motion on October 2, 2023 and contend they will be prejudiced if discovery is not reopened. Defendants then make a confusing argument that reopening discovery will not interfere with the trial date because there is no set trial date and Plaintiffs have stipulated to continue the trial date. First, Defendants are mistaken that there is no trial date. Trial is set for March 4, 2024. Also, if there is no trial date, why is the Motion styled as one to Reopen Discovery and Continue Trial and Pretrial Deadlines?

Finally, Defendants request sanctions under two different statutes. First, under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c), which states: “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 compel a response to interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).) This is not a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and there is no indication that Plaintiffs unsuccessfully made or opposed such a motion. Likewise, a request for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 is only proper “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to extend or to reopen discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (c).) There is no opposition by Plaintiffs to the instant Motion except to the request for sanctions. Therefore, the request for sanctions is denied.

Conclusion

Defendants Quint Tax Services Corp. and Carlos M. Quintana’s Motion to Reopen Discovery, Continue Trial, and Pretrial Dates is GRANTED. TRIAL IS CONTINUED TO APRIL 24, 2024 AT 8:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT WITH DISCOVERY AND MOTION CUTOFFS TO FOLLOW THE NEW TRIAL DATE. DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.