Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 22AHCV00922, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00922, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling

On October 26, 2022, plaintiff William Henry Meurer (“Plaintiff”) filed this partition action against defendant Qinpei Li (“Defendant”). On October 11, 2024, the Court continued the non-jury trial to April 14, 2025, but kept discovery closed. On October 21, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to reopen discovery. Plaintiff filed an opposition brief on November 25, 2024. No reply brief is on file.

Except as otherwise provided, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for trial of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).) 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).)

Here, Defendant argues that discovery should be reopened “to excavate the information intentionally hidden by the alter ego of Plaintiff.” (Motion, p. 7.) Defendant declares that it was recently discovered that “Plaintiff frauded [sic] the court by producing illegal evidence to evade paying alimony to Defendant, and also by not disclosing his income to evade child support with an alter ego business account.” (Li Decl., ¶ 2.) Defendant also accuses Plaintiff of engaging in harassing conduct which interfered with her attempts to conduct discovery. (Li Decl., ¶ 4.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that discovery should not be reopened because Defendant has made no effort over the past two years to conduct any discovery. (Opp., p. 1.) Plaintiff also argues that the discovery sought relates to alimony and child support issues and not the partition action. (Opp., p. 2.)

Defendant failed to file a reply brief and does not address Plaintiff’s claims regarding her lack of diligence or her improper reasons for reopening discovery.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@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.