Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 21NWCV00448, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21NWCV00448    Hearing Date: March 2, 2023    Dept: F

GONZALEZ, et al. v. PEREZ, et al.

CASE NO.:  21NWCV00448

HEARING:  3/2/23 @ 8:30 AM

#2

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff in Intervention JPMorgan Chase Bank’s unopposed motion to reopen discovery is GRANTED.  Discovery is re-opened and will correspond to the new trial date of August 17, 2023, ONLY as to Chase.  The prior discovery cut-off date remains in effect as to the remaining parties.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff in Intervention JPMorgan Chase Bank (“Chase”) applies to reopen discovery.

On motion of any party, the court may allow discovery proceedings to be completed, or a discovery motion to be heard, after the “cut-off” dates above; or, it may reopen discovery after the trial has been continued to a new date. (CCP § 2024.050(a); see Pelton Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1588.) The motion should be accompanied by

declarations covering the factors identified below, plus facts showing “a reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the matter informally. (CCP 2024.050(a).)

In exercising its discretion to grant or deny the motion, the court must take into consideration any relevant matter, including the following: the necessity and reasons for the additional discovery sought; the diligence or lack of diligence by the party seeking discovery, and the reasons why the discovery was not completed or the discovery motion heard earlier; whether permitting the discovery or granting the discovery motion will likely prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar or prejudice any party; and the length of time elapsed between any date previously set and the date presently set for trial. (CCP § 2024.050(b); see Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1351–1352.)

The court finds Chase has established diligence.  Chase requested that Plaintiffs name it as a Defendant in the Complaint because it holds a first deed of trust against the property, and is a necessary and indispensable party.  When Plaintiffs refused to name Chase, Chase filed its motion for leave to intervene, which was granted on December 22, 2022.  As a new party, Chase is entitled to conduct discovery. 

The court finds that good cause exists to re-open discovery ONLY as to Chase.  The prior discovery cut-off date remains in effect as to the remaining parties.

Motion is GRANTED.