Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

¿ 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

On June 5, 2020, Plaintiffs Kenny Kapoor, South Shore LLC, and APAX Investments, LLC filed their Complaint against defendants Zalfa Halaby, Charles Elkins, Emad Halaby, Eddie Halaby, Kal Halaby, Brad Wiedmann, Rez Properties, LLC, REAA Texas LLC, and Does 1 through 20 for (1) fraud and deceit, (2) conversion, (3) breach of fiduciary duty,(4) unjust enrichment, and (5) accounting. 

On May 12, 2023, Plaintiffs Zalfa Halaby, Charles Elkins, and Rez Properties, LLC filed a verified Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against defendants Kenny Kapoor, South Shore LLC, Clifford Sullivan, First American Title Company, Fay Servicing LLC, Rez Properties LLC, and Does 1 to 100 for (1) conversion, (2) fraud, (3) negligence, (4) unjust enrichment, (5) cancellation/rescission of written instrument, and (5) quiet title. 

On December 14, 2022, Case Nos. 20STCV21303, 21STCV22863, and 21CHUD00470 were consolidated, with 20STCV21303 as the lead case. 

On June 4, 2024, defendant 1Sharpe Opportunity Intermediate Trust (“1Sharpe”) filed a demurrer with a motion to strike Plaintiffs Zalfa Halaby, Charles Elkins, and Rez Properties, LLC’s verified SAC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), setting the hearing for September 9, 2024. 

Trial is currently set for December 23, 2024. 

On July 29, 2024, 1Sharpe filed the instant motion to continue trial and all related dates to April 2025, or to a date thereafter. 

Any opposition was due on or before August 12, 2024. No opposition has been filed to date. 

 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.¿ (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)¿ The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.¿ (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted: (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance of trial due to any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial.¿(See generally, CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).) 

Additional factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c), (d).) 

 

III. DISCUSSION 

1Sharpe avers a continuance is necessary because it only appeared in this action in June 2024. Shortly after 1Sharpe’s appearance, 1Sharpe served written discovery on Plaintiffs. However, 1Sharpe contends that Plaintiffs have not responded to discovery to date, and that it requires additional time to conduct discovery, designate expert witnesses, and to potentially file a motion for summary judgment. In sum, 1Sharpe argues that it has just appeared in the action, it has no discovery responses or other discovery, it has a compressed timeframe to complete discovery, and that it has a demurrer to Plaintiffs’ SAC on calendar. 

The motion is unopposed. Although this case matter is old, the actions involve a significant number of parties, and the matter has been continually active since the inception. 1Sharpe has established that it would be prejudiced should a continuance not be granted, and no parties have opposed the motion demonstrating otherwise. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause to continue the trial date to allow the parties sufficient time to complete discovery and for 1Sharpe’s demurrer to be heard prior to the trial date. 

 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, the unopposed motion to continue trial is GRANTED. 

The December 23, 2024 trial date is continued to ______________ at 9:30 a.m. in Department 78 of Stanley Mosk Courthouse.  

The December 9, 2024 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 78. All discovery and expert cutoff dates are continued to reflect the new trial date.  

The parties must plan all discovery and trial preparation accordingly. 

 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice. 

 

DATED: August 22, 2024 

__________________________ 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. 

• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. 

• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.