Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCP02614, Date: 2024-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP02614    Hearing Date: August 23, 2024    Dept: 82

California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Canada Flintridge

Case No. 23STCP02614

[Tentative] Order Denying Ex Parte Application

            On March 4, 2024, the court (Beckloff, J.) granted the petitions and issued a writ “directing Respondents to set aside their May 1, 2023 decision finding 600 Foothill’s application does not qualify as a Builder’s Remedy project and to process the application in accordance with the [Housing Accountability Act].”  The writ of mandate issued on April 15, 2024, and Respondents filed a notice of appeal on April 16, 2024.

            On August 16, 2024, counsel for the City of La Canada Flintridge (the “City”) sought to reserve a hearing date for 16 motions to compel.  Upon review of the docket, the court learned that there is a motion for a protective order set for hearing on September 25, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. which may resolve the outstanding discovery issues.  Therefore, the court reserved a hearing date of November 8, 2024, for the 16 discovery motions but ordered the City not to file the motions until the court decides the motion for a protective order.

            Now, the City has filed an ex parte application for an order: (1) continuing the hearing on the motion for a protective order to November 8, 2024; (2) permitting the City to file its 16 motions to compel “so that it may effect service on all parties;” and (3) continuing the hearing on the motion for an appellate bond to December 20, 2024, so the City may complete discovery before opposing the motion. 

            The ex parte application is denied because there is a genuine question whether the City is authorized to conduct discovery.  Therefore, the court intends to proceed as follows:

            1.         The court will decide the motion for a protective order on September 25, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. because the resolution of that motion may streamline the proceedings (i.e., if the court grants the motion, there will be no need for the City to file the 16 motions to compel, and the City can oppose the motion for an appeal bond based upon the current record).

            2.         The court advances and continues the hearing on the motion for an appeal bond from October 11, 2024, to October 25, 2024, at 9:30 a.m.  If the court grants the motion for a protective order, the new hearing date affords sufficient time to oppose the motion.  If the court denies the motion for a protective order, at that point, the court will continue the hearing to a date after discovery has been completed.

            3.         The court denies the request to permit the City to file 16 motions to compel before September 25, 2024.  If the court denies the motion for a protective order on that date, the City can file the motions at that point.  That schedule should afford sufficient time to serve the motions, but if not, the court will continue the hearing date on those motions.

            Based upon the foregoing, the City’s ex parte application is denied without prejudice.  Counsel for the City shall provide notice and file proof of service with the court.