Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 21TRCV00625, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

This action involves an in pro per defendant. Plaintiffs are investors in various businesses allegedly established by Defendant, Michael Ball (“Defendant”) memorialized in written contracts. Plaintiffs allege that at Defendant’s instance, Plaintiffs were induced to appoint him as manager of the investments upon an agreement to provide Plaintiffs with unfettered access to the Businesses’ financial records so that they could monitor their investments. Plaintiffs allege that since 2014, they have invested approximately $20 million in the aforesaid business but Defendant purportedly breached the agreements by refusing to grant Plaintiffs access to all of the businesses’ financial records and placed the money invested at risk.

Plaintiffs’ original Complaint was filed on August 25, 2021. The First Amended Complaint was filed on January 9, 2023. On November 22, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file their Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (3) Injunction for Inspection of Books and Records; (4) Accounting; (5) Breach of Promissory Note; and (6) Fraud/Deceit/Concealment.

On December 20, 2023, this Court GRANTED Plaintiffs’ Motion for leave to file their SAC, which was officially filed on December 21, 2023.

Plaintiffs now file a Motion to Continue Trial to complete discovery and to harmonize the scheduling with a related case that is also before Department 8.

On December 27, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Continue Trial. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c).) The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (Id.) 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, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (d)(1)-(11).) Additionally, factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; the proximity of the trial date; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c), (d).)¿

Discussion

Here, Plaintiffs note that Ball’s liability surfaced in the course of the litigation, even as recently as the granting of leave to file Plaintiffs’ SAC. Additionally, Plaintiffs note that through discovery, they have recently named two DOE defendants, Ultracor, Inc. and Marsha Na Nongkhai aka Asah Kai, who are still in the process of being served with the SAC. Plaintiffs note that unless the trial date is continued, Defendant, Michael Ball (already served) as well as the recently added DOES Defendants will not have sufficient time to respond to the SAC and that Plaintiffs will not have sufficient time to complete their discovery as to the newly identified defendants prior to the final status conference and trial. Plaintiffs further note that the related case, Sikder Holdings International, Inc. v. Ultracor, Inc. Case No. 22TRCV00525 is scheduled for trial on May 28, 2024. Plaintiffs are requesting that the trial date in the current case at bar be continued to that same date so that both cases can be tried on the same day.

Here, the Court agrees that good cause exists for continuing the trial date. Because Plaintiffs have shown good cause to continue trial, attempted to meet and confer with defendants about a stipulation to continue trial, and there is no opposition from defendants to this motion, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue Trial, and sets trial for May 28, 2024. The FSC will be continued to May 18, 2024, with all discovery, motion, and expert deadlines correspondingly re-scheduled to be based on the new trial date