Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV32841, Date: 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32841    Hearing Date: September 14, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On September 3, 2021, plaintiff Dora Alvarado (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Zaumeyer Trust, Brian Zaumeyer, and Amanda Zaumeyer (collectively, “Defendants”), as well as Brendan O’Shea (“O’Shea”).  Plaintiff alleges she was bitten by a dog owned by O’Shea and that Defendants were O’Shea’s landlords.  On July 6, 2022, the Court granted Defendants’ request for ex parte relief and continued the trial date from March 3, 2023, to May 22, 2023.  On August 11, 2022, Defendants filed this motion requesting the Court extend all discovery and expert deadlines so that they are based on the new trial date.  The motion is unopposed. 

II.          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 demonstrating a good faith effort at informal resolution.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)  

The court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity and the reasons for the discovery, (2) the 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) any 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) the 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).)

III.        DISCUSSION

The Court granted Defendants’ ex parte application to continue trial so that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment could be heard on April 19, 2023.  Defendant explains that a continuance of the discovery cutoff deadlines is necessary so that a full investigation into the matters can be conducted.  (Motion, 2:16-18.)  Defendants do not identify the type of discovery that needs to be completed and does not include any discussion of the factors listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050(b).  In short, Defendants provide no reason that a “full investigation” cannot be conducted by February 1, 2023.  Additionally, Defendants do not provide a meet and confer declaration as required by statute.  The declaration from Rebecca Ricket does not mention any efforts to meet and confer with counsel. 

IV.         CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to continue the discovery cut-off dates is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.