Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 21TRCV07919, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 21TRCV07919, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21TRCV07919 Hearing Date: July 10, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: July 10, 2023¿

CASE NUMBER: 21STCV07919 (consolidated with 21TRCV00141)

CASE NAME: Jesse Franklin Esphort v. Tung Ming, et al. .

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Jesse Franklin Esphort

RESPONDING PARTY: None

TRIAL DATE: August 1, 2023

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED, with new date to be discussed at the hearing

I. BACKGROUND¿

A. Factual¿

On March 1, 2021, Plaintiffs, Jesse Franklin Esphorst, an individual, and as successor-in-interest to The Estate of Jesse Eric Esphorst, deceased (Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants, Tung Ming, Kwan Cheung, Teddyland, LLC, and DOES 1 through 50.

Plaintiff now files a Motion to Continue Trial.

B. Procedural

On June 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Continue Trial and all Related Dates.

II. ANALYSIS ¿

A. 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).)

B. Discussion

Here, Plaintiff asserts that the motion is based on the fact that this fraudulent conveyance lawsuit was consolidated with another identical fraudulent conveyance lawsuit, and that both suits stem from two pending civil lawsuits for wrongful death and personal injuries entitled Julie Esphorst v. Darryl Leander Hicks, et al. (Case No. 9 BC700634 - Lead Case) and Jesse Esphorst v. Darryl Leander Hicks, et al. (Case No. BC701531). Plaintiff notes that all the aforementioned lawsuits are currently pending before the Court. Plaintiff further notes that the trial in the fraudulent conveyance lawsuits was scheduled for after the trial in the wrongful death/personal injury lawsuits so that the verdict against Mr. Ming could be determined in the underlying cases and then to allow the parties to compete discovery and potentially engage in a mediation before the fraudulent conveyance lawsuits went to trial. Plaintiff notes that the trial of the wrongful death/person injury lawsuits was scheduled for May 8, 2023 and the trial of the fraudulent conveyance lawsuits for August 1, 2023. However, by stipulation, the trial of the wrongful death/personal injury lawsuits was continued to July 17, 2023. At the Final Status Conference in the wrongful death case, the parties advised that expert discovery is incomplete and briefing of motiosn in limine is incomplete, so Plaintiffs’ counsel sought yet another trial postponement although defense counsel did not join in the request to postpone the trial past July 17. The Court did not continue the wrongful death trial, but indicated it likely would if the parties had not settled by July 17. As a result, Plaintiff contends the trial of the fraudulent conveyance lawsuits also needs to be continued for the reasons stated above.

Plaintiff submits that ordinarily, the parties would enter into a stipulation to move the fraudulent conveyance trial. However, Plaintiff asserts that the Ming and Cheung defendants are in pro per, and they have not been engaging in the fraudulent conveyance lawsuits. (See Clayton Deel.) As a result, this motion was necessary. Plaintiffs note that their counsel, and counsel for Defendant, Teddyland, LLC have met and conferred about a new trial date. (Cayton Decl.) Plaintiffs note that all counsel have agreed that an early December 2023 date would be best for the trial of the fraudulent conveyance lawsuits. (Id.) Thus, by this motion, Plaintiff is asking that this Court continue the trial of the fraudulent conveyance lawsuits to early December 2023, that the FSC date be continued to a date that corresponds with the new trial date, and that all discovery dates be continued to track with the new trial date.

The Court finds that there is good cause to continue the trial based on all of the other inter-related lawsuits involving many of the same parties that are currently before the Court.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue trial is GRANTED, new date to be discuss at the hearing. Moving party is ordered to give notice