Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: SC127028, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

The Court generally uploads tentative rulings the morning of the hearing.  Because of that, the parties cannot submit on the tentative the night before and not appear.  However, if after reviewing the tentative ruling ALL COUNSEL submit, they should tell the Court's judicial assistant when checking in and the Court will endeavor to either not hear the case in light of the submission or, if the Court believes that a hearing is still needed for some other reason, then the Court will be inclined to give priority.

In some cases, tentative rulings may be given by email the morning of the hearing rather than on the tentative ruling site.  Please check your email if you have not seen the tentative.  The email is generally sent to the persons who have signed up for a remote hearing.

For those appearing in the courtroom, the Court will provide a hard copy of the tentative ruling. 

Case Number: SC127028    Hearing Date: April 14, 2023    Dept: R

The court will discuss this issue with counsel.  The court is quite troubled at the repeated assurances provided by plaintiffs that they would stipulate to a continuance in return for additional time to respond to discovery.  (The court is not sure plaintiffs have yet responded to discovery fully.)  Yet when the time came to do so, plaintiffs changed direction and insisted on no continuance, then a 90 day continuance, then a 30 day continuance, and now a 90 day continuance again.  The court is far from sure that even a November trial date is feasible given the repeated discovery extensions requested by plaintiffs.

The court was of a mind to continue the case to May, 2024, which is when the court’s trial calendar largely opens up somewhat.  However, the court will discuss this with counsel.  There is a hint that plaintiffs’ medical condition is at the root of the issue, and if the problem is there is a medical reason for her to now oppose a longer continuance, the court will certainly bear that in mind.

The court also notes, however, that to the extent holding the trial in California is part of the problem, it is a problem of plaintiffs’ making.  Defendants have been trying to move the case since its inception.  It is unclear whether plaintiffs can be heard now to argue that trying the case in California poses a hardship.