Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 19PSCV00880, Date: 2023-09-28 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 19PSCV00880    Hearing Date: September 28, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiffs William Loo, Tony To Chong Loo, Cui Ping Loo, and Danny Weising Loo’s Motion to Reopen Discovery for a Limited Purpose of Taking the Depositions of Defendants First American Title Company and LC Equity Group Inc.

Respondent: Defendants Sunwest Trust FBO David W. Free; Steven Goldenberg; LC Equity Group, Inc.; Michael J. Tannenbaum; Oxnard Street, LLC; Zvi Gutentag and Michael Gutentag, Trustees of the Gutentag Family Trust; Sunwest Trust FBO Joseph Davis; Eyal Gutentag and Diane Gutentag, Trustees of the Gutentag Revocable Trust, Dated June 4, 2019; The Bernard Rothschild Pension Plan, by and through Bernard Rothschild and James Bernard Rothshild as Trustees; Summit Capital LLC; and CDG Investments, LLC

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs William Loo, Tony To Chong Loo, Cui Ping Loo, and Danny Weising Loo’s Motion to Reopen Discovery for a Limited Purpose of Taking the Depositions of the Person(s) Most Knowledgeable for Defendants First American Title Company and LC Equity Group Inc. is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is a consolidated action to quiet title. Plaintiffs Tony To Chong Loo, Cui Ping Loo, Danny Weising Loo, and William Loo allege that Zixi Li acted in concert with others to use the Loos’ names to forge, present, and notarize false powers of attorney and deeds of trust in order to obtain loans.

On October 2, 2019, the Loos, with the exception of William Loo, filed a complaint alleging the following causes of action against Li, LC Equity Group (LC Equity), Ress Financial Corporation (Ress Financial), First American Title Company (First American), Weishi Xie, Agnes N. Nwapa-Jourdan, all persons known and unknown, and Does 1-25: (1) declaratory relief, (2) cancellation of instruments, (3) slander of title, (4) quiet title, and (5) unjust enrichment. Subsequently, the following Defendants were added to the action: Sunwest Trust FBO David W. Free (Free Trust); Steven Goldenberg; Michael J. Tannenbaum; Oxnard Street, LLC (Oxnard Street); ZVI Gutentag and Michael Gutentag, Trustees of the Gutentag Family Trust (Gutentag Trust); Sunwest Trust FBO Joseph Davis (Davis Trust); Eyal Gutentag and Diane Gutentag, Trustees of the Gutentag Revocable Trust, Dated June 4, 2019 (2019 Gutentag Trust); The Bernard Rothschild Pension Plan, by and through Bernard Rothschild and James Bernard Rothshild as Trustees (Rothschild Pension Plan); Summit Capital LLC (Summit), and CDG Investments, LLC (CDG).

On December 5, 2019, Tannenbaum filed a cross-complaint against Li, Xie, and Roes 1-20, alleging causes of action for (1) indemnity, (2) contribution, (3) intentional misrepresentation, (4) concealment, and (5) negligence of a notary public. On the same day, the Davis Trust, Goldenberg, the 2019 Gutentag Trust, the Free Trust, the Gutentag Trust, Oxnard Street, CDG, and LC Equity filed a cross-complaint against the same defendants and alleging the same causes of action.

On October 2, 2019, William Loo filed a verified complaint alleging the following causes of action against Li, M. Zha, Nwapa-Jourdan, Summit, the Rothschild Pension Plan, JMR Investments (JMR), Does 1-25, and all persons unknown, alleging the following causes of action: (1) declaratory relief, (2) cancellation of instruments, (3) slander of title, (4) quiet title, and (5) unjust enrichment.

On December 5, 2019, Summit and the Rothschild Pension Plan filed a cross-complaint against Li, Zha, and Roes 1-20 for (1) indemnity, (2) contribution, (3) fraud by intentional misrepresentation, (4) fraud by concealment, and (5) negligence of a notary public.

On June 7, 2023, the separate actions by the Loos and William Loo were consolidated into the present action.

On September 1, 2023, the Loos filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion and a further status conference re: status of ADR are set for September 28. A final status conference is set for January 18, 2024, with a non-jury trial set for January 29.

ANALYSIS

The Loos move to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of deposing American Title and LC Equity. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS the Loos’ motion.

Legal Standard

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).) Factors relevant to deciding such a motion include “(1) [t]he necessity and the reasons for the discovery[;] (2) [t]he 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) [a]ny 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[; and] (4) [t]he length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).)

Discussion

In this case, the Loos argue there is good cause to reopen discovery because their prior counsel was unable to go forward with these depositions earlier to due to a shoulder injury and subsequent health problems. LC Equity’s deposition was originally set for October 6, 2022, and continued to October 27. (Ensberg Decl., ¶ 3.) But on October 26, the deposition was cancelled after Loos’ prior counsel suffered a shoulder injury and went to the emergency room. (Ensberg Decl., ¶ 3.) First American’s deposition was set in September 2022 and continued until June 2023 due to the unavailability of First American’s person most knowledgeable. (Ensberg Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. C.) In June 2023, Loos’ counsel was unable to take First American’s deposition due to worsening health issues and filed a motion to be relieved as Loos’ counsel which the court granted. (Ensberg Decl., ¶ 4.) On August 11, a substitution of counsel was filed. On August 15, Loos’ new counsel attempted to meet and confer with Defendants’ counsel who refused to allow the reopening of discovery. (Lee Decl., ¶ 5.)

In opposition, Defendants argue Loos’ prior counsel was not diligent in seeking these depositions. But even so, the other factors set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, subdivision (b) weigh in favor of allowing the Loos to depose First American and LC Equity. With respect to the necessity and the reasons for discovery, as referenced in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, subdivision (b)(1), the purposes of discovery are “to assist the parties and the trier of fact in ascertaining the truth; to encourage settlement by educating the parties as to the strengths of their claims and defenses; to expedite and facilitate preparation and trial; to prevent delay; and to safeguard against surprise.” (Beverly Hospital v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1294.) Here, the Loos establish these depositions are necessary to clarify each defendant’s role in the approval of allegedly fraudulent loan applications. (Lee Decl., ¶ 3-4.)

With respect to prejudice to the other party, as referenced in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, subdivision (b)(3) and to the length of time that has elapsed between the date previously set for trial and the date presently set, as referenced in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, subdivision (b)(4), the present trial date was first set in November 8, 2021, for January 17, 2023. Given the trial was continued to January 2024, a brief opening of discovery will not delay Defendants’ ability to prepare for trial. Furthermore, Defendants will be allowed to serve one additional set of supplemental interrogatories and requests for production pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.070, subdivision (c) and Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.050, subdivision (c).

Accordingly, the Loos’ motion is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS the Loos’ motion to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of deposing the person(s) most knowledgeable for American Title and LC Equity.