Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCP00049, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP00049    Hearing Date: November 19, 2024    Dept: 82

Paul W. Harrison v. Pasadena Lodge No. 672, Case No. 23STCP00049 

THERE WILL BE NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER

Petitioner Paul W. Harrison (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for writ of mandate on January 9, 2023.  Petitioner filed a first amended petition on April 19, 2023.  On August 9, 2023, the court (Beckloff, J.) granted an order sustaining Respondents’ demurrer to the first amended petition and granting Respondents’ motion to strike.  The court granted leave to amend.

Petitioner filed the operative second amended petition on August 30, 2023.  Respondents again filed a demurrer and motion to strike (on September 29, 2023.)  The motions were originally set for hearing on February 9, 2024, but the parties executed several stipulations to continue the hearing date.  Eventually, the motions were calendared for January 6, 2025, at 9:30 a.m.  The parties executed a further stipulation to continue the hearing to February 2025.  The court denied that stipulation but continued the hearing to a regular calendar day: January 10, 2025, at 9:30 a.m.

Now, Petitioner has filed an ex parte application for leave to amend and a “Request to Reschedule the Hearing,” which the court construes as an ex parte application to continue the hearing date.  The court rules on these matters without a hearing, per Code of Civil Procedure section 166(a)(1).

The court denies the ex parte application to continue the hearing date.  These motions were filed over one year ago and must be decided.  The request provides no facts in support of the request, so there is no good cause. 

The court denies the ex parte application to the extent it seeks leave to amend before the court resolves the pending motions.  Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, there will be prejudice: Defendants have already prepared and filed their motions, and the court has already reserved a hearing date.  Moreover, these motions must be resolved, given the amount of time they have been pending.  Nevertheless, the court will continue the ex parte application to January 10, 2025, at 9:30 a.m.  The court will consider its contents in determining whether to grant leave to amend, if the court sustains the demurrer and/or grants the motion to strike.

Based upon the foregoing, the court orders as follows:

1.       The court denies the request for a continuance.

2.       The court continues the hearing on the ex parte application for leave to amend to January 10, 2025, at 9:30 a.m.

3.       The court’s clerk shall provide notice via email.