Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22SMCV02285, Date: 2023-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02285    Hearing Date: March 6, 2023    Dept: R

The ex parte application is GRANTED.  The court will discuss with counsel a new hearing date to hear both writ applications.  Defendant’s opposition will be considered.  Plaintiff’s reply will depend on the date the court sets for the hearing.  The court will discuss an appropriate date with counsel.

The court is also a bit disappointed in plaintiff and its counsel.  Given that defendant had filed a timely opposition to an identical writ in the UD case, counsel ought to have known that defendant did oppose the writ—it is not a situation where the defendant seems to acquiesce to the attachment.  However, plaintiff did not mention the identical writ proceeding that had been pending in the UD court or defendant’s opposition to it nor was it mentioned in the notice of non-opposition.  Plaintiff did not call defense counsel to see why defendant did not oppose the writ here but did there.  Rather, plaintiff attempted to steal a march on defendant.  That is especially odd in that the parties were in court the day before the notice of no opposition was filed and plaintiff could easily have taken that opportunity to speak to defense counsel to discuss the situation.

The court is not accusing plaintiff’s counsel of unethical conduct.  However, at least in this court, that sort of sharp practice (and there is really no kinder way to put it) will not serve plaintiff well in this Department.

The court will likely not be able to hear the application until it returns from some time off, so the likely hearing date will be toward month’s end.