Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV15270, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15270    Hearing Date: April 16, 2024    Dept: 31

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

LUISA SAPIENS, 

Plaintiff(s), 

vs. 

 

HOOSHANG HAGHIGHAT, ET AL., 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 22STCV15270 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m. 

April 16, 2024 

 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

On May 9, 2022, plaintiff Luisa Sapiens (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Hooshang Haghighat, Daria Trs, and Haghighat Family Trust, and Does 1 to 50 for injuries arising from a metal gate coming off the rail, which caused Plaintiff to fall backwards on concrete. On September 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed amendments to complaint correcting the name of defendants Daria Trs to Daria Haghighat, Trustee of The Haghighat Family Trust, and correcting the name Hooshang Haghighat to Hooshang Haghighat, Trustee of the Haghighat Family Trust. Further, dismissal was entered as to Haghighat Family Trust on September 6, 2022. 

On February 6, 2023, defense counsel filed Notice of Death of Hooshang Haghighat, Trustee of the Haghighat Family Trust.  

Trial was initially set for November 6, 2023. The parties stipulated to a trial continuance to April 5, 2024, but did not specifically stipulate that discovery and motion cut-off dates would be based on the new trial date. (Stip. & Order, Sept. 6, 2023.) On March 4, 2024, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue the trial date. The trial date was continued to August 6, 2024, and the Court specified that discovery would be tied to the April 5, 2024 trial date. (Min. Order, March 5, 2024.) The parties were instructed that the re-opening of discovery deadlines must be requested via a regularly noticed motion. (Ibid.).   

Plaintiff now moves to re-open discovery to track with the current trial date. Defense counsel filed a declaration in opposition. No reply was filed.  

 

  1. Moving Argument 

Plaintiff argues the stipulation was mistakenly left blank as to the discovery and motion cut-off dates. Plaintiff seeks to re-open discovery to track with the current trial date because Plaintiff served discovery on December 1, 2023. Plaintiff granted Defendants’ request for an additional thirty days to serve responses and argues no responses have been served. Plaintiff contends she would be deprived of an opportunity to present her case if discovery is not reopened so that she may complete discovery in obtaining written responses, and to conduct the depositions of material witnesses. 

 

  1. Opposing Argument 

 Defense counsel asserts that Defendants were not served with the instant motion. Counsel attests that he monitors the Register of Action on a monthly basis, and realized Plaintiff filed the instant motion upon reviewing the Register of Action. Furthermore, Defendant contends the motion is defective because Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration is not signed under penalty of perjury. Further, Defendants assert that both sides had completed discovery, and Defendants in fact responded to all of Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents, form interrogatories, and request for admissions back in October 2022.  

 

  1. Reply Argument 

Any reply was due on or before April 9, 2024; none was filed.  

 

II. MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY 

CCP § 2024.050 provides, in relevant part: 

 

“(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.” 

 

Here, the parties appear to have had ample time to conduct discovery. Further, Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ contention that they were not actually served with the moving papers. Aside from the procedural defects noted by Defendants, Plaintiff has failed to justify the necessity for reopening discovery. Plaintiff only provides that she propounded written discovery in December 2023, but does not explain what, if any, discovery has already been conducted and completed. Further, Plaintiff does not explain which material witnesses are required to be deposed, and merely states it in a heading to the memorandum of points and authorities. In sum, Plaintiff fails to provide any explanation regarding diligence in seeking discovery, nor provides a reason for why discovery was not completed earlier. The Court finds that the balancing of the factors set forth under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2024.050, subdivision (b), weighs against reopening discovery. 

 

III. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery is DENIED.  

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice. 

 

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¿sscdept31@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.¿ 

 

Dated this 15th day of April 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court