Motion to Extend the Time Within Which an Action Must Be Brought to Trial in California

CASE NO: LC102618 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO EXTEND THE 5-YEAR DISMISSAL STATUTE DEADLINE BEYOND OCTOBER 26, 2021, OR ALTERNATIVELY, COMMENCE PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 26, 2021 Dept. T 8:30 a.m. October 26, 2021 [TENTATIVE] ORDER: Plaintiff Anil Sharma’s Motion to Extend the 5-Year Dismissal Deadline is GRANTED. Plaintiff Anil Sharma’s alternative request to commence trial is MOOT.

.: SC127639 MOTION: Motion to Extend the Five-Year Statute of Limitations HEARING DATE: 11/16/2022 Legal Standard Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 provides that [a]n action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant. The action is commenced upon plaintiff's filing the original complaint against the defendant. ( Brumley v. FDCC California, Inc. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 312, 318.)

CCP section 632 provides, in relevant part, “In superior courts, upon the trial of a question of fact by the court, written findings of fact and conclusions of law shall not be required. The court shall issue a statement of decision explaining the factual and legal basis for its decision as to each of the principal controverted issues at trial upon the request of any party appearing at the trial.” (emphasis added.)

On September 20, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this motion to extend the five-year period to bring this matter to trial or, in the alternative, for a preferential trial setting. Defendants filed an Opposition on October 4. Plaintiffs filed a Reply on October 10. Legal Standard Five Year Rule Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 provides: An action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.310.)

On September 20, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this motion to extend the five-year period to bring this matter to trial or, in the alternative, for a preferential trial setting. Defendants filed an Opposition on October 4. Plaintiffs filed a Reply on October 10. Legal Standard Five Year Rule Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 provides: An action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.310.)

(1) The motion to extend the five-year deadline to bring this action to trial is DENIED. (2) Defendants' request for dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.310 and 583.360 is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. (3) Moving parties shall serve written notice of this ruling on all parties no later than October 9, 2026. They shall also prepare the order and, after it is signed, serve and file notice of entry of order.

Any likelihood that permitting the discovery 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.¿ This factor weighs against granting the motion. On March 5, 2026 (yesterday), the Court set a trial date of June 29, 2026. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310, this case must be brought to trial by January 28, 2027.

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE CVRI2101481 HERTEL VS O'NEAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT MOTIONS BY TRACY JO HERTEL Tentative Ruling: Motion to extend time “indefinitely” to file default judgment is denied; CMC and OSC set for 9/15/22 is vacated; and Trial Setting Conference is set for November 29, 2022.

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE CVRI2101481 HERTEL VS O'NEAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT MOTIONS BY TRACY JO HERTEL Tentative Ruling: Motion to extend time “indefinitely” to file default judgment is denied; CMC and OSC set for 9/15/22 is vacated; and Trial Setting Conference is set for November 29, 2022.

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE CVRI2101481 HERTEL VS O'NEAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT MOTIONS BY TRACY JO HERTEL Tentative Ruling: Motion to extend time “indefinitely” to file default judgment is denied; CMC and OSC set for 9/15/22 is vacated; and Trial Setting Conference is set for November 29, 2022.

Motion to Extend Time to Seek Writ Review of Summary Judgment Order The Motion to Extend Time to Seek Writ Review of Summary Judgment Order is DENIED. With a 15 Day Estimate Jury Trial set for August 19, 2025, any further delay would place the existing trial date on this 2019 Case in jeopardy. Readiness Conference Appearance required. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of the court at (209) 725-4111 to seek permission and arrange for a remote appearance.

Motion to Extend Discovery Cut-Off or Re-Open Discovery filed by DESILVA GATES CONSTRUCTION Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and for Matters Deemed Admitted filed by DESILVA GATES CONSTRUCTION TENTATIVE RULING Motion to Extend Discovery Cut-Off or Re-Open Discovery The motion to extend the discovery cut-off or re-open discovery is granted in part.

Absent a cogent opposition, the Motion to Extend Attachment on Property will be GRANTED.

Trial Setting Conference Appearance required.

LEGAL STANDARD Under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 , [a]n action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.310.)

Defendant Palmquist's Amended Motion to Extend Discovery, and for Leave to file Demurrer and Cross-Complaint is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant's motion to extend discovery is denied. The parties previously stipulated that discovery deadlines would follow a new trial date, which has yet to be set. Therefore, Defendant's motion to extend discovery is moot and is denied.

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SELECT TRIAL AND MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE DATES Defendant's Motion to Extend Time to Select Trial and Mandatory Settlement Conference Dates is granted. The Court orders this matter referred to the Trial Setting Program. This case is referred to Master Calendar for selection of Trial and Mandatory Settlement Conference dates.

On October 22, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to extend the time for exchange of expert witness information. Plaintiffs requested the deadline be extended to November 15, 2025, based on the then-scheduled trial date of December 4, 2025. On November 5, 2025, the Court continued the Jury Trial to August 17, 2026.

Awoniyi denied this motion on February 7, 2025, based upon Judge Gevercer’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion to extend the five-year statute. (Minute Order, Feb. 7, 2025.) Judge Awoniyi also determined that “[e]ven if Plaintiff were seeking a [new] trial date within the deadline to commence trial, the Court is not persuaded there is good cause for a continuance.” (Id. at p. 2 [emphasis added].) Thus, the Presiding Judge denied continuance of the May 5, 2025 trial in any event.

At the Trial Readiness Conference held the same day, the Court scheduled the Final Status Conference for 03/06/2026 and the non-jury trial for 03/23/2026.

Plaintiff shouldn’t have to choose between a trial without Mr. Pham or two trials, especially since the recent delay in going to trial was caused by his lack of activity in this case. Finally, the Court notes that it does not believe that plaintiff forfeited her right to seek relief here by asking for an accounting. 5. The Court therefore GRANTS the motion to extend time for trial, but only to October 16, 2019, given that the delay caused by Mr. Pham’s “radio silence” was about 3-4 months.

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Extend Five Year Trial Perios Or, Alternatively, To Expedite Trial OFF CALENDAR PJ MATTER TO BE HEARD IN DEPT. 206.(302/JUDGE MC CARTHY)

Ntc Of Mtn And Mtn To Extend Trial Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Wednesday, November 27, 2013, line 5. DEFENDANT ARIEL BENTOLILA and ABENET TEKIE's Motion To Extend Trial GRANTED. Discovery cut-off date is set in accordance with new trial date. No opposition filed. = (501/REQ)

Event type: Notice of Motion and Motion to Continue the Trial Date, or Alternatively for Extension of Time to Select Trial and Settlement Conference Dates, November 18, 2010. The motion for a continuance is denied. The motion to extend time to select trial and settlement conference dates is granted. The parties shall have until January 14, 2011 to select a trial date.

Motion to Extend Discovery Cutoff by CVPS2200456 POTTER vs WELSH DEONTAY POTTER Tentative Ruling: Matter taken off calendar by court. Court previously continued trial to August 30, 2024 and ALL DISCOVERY AND TRIAL RELATED DEADLINES governed by the new trial date. This is reflected by minute order of December 8, 2023.

Motion to Extend Discovery Cutoff by CVPS2200456 POTTER vs WELSH DEONTAY POTTER Tentative Ruling: Matter taken off calendar by court. Court previously continued trial to August 30, 2024 and ALL DISCOVERY AND TRIAL RELATED DEADLINES governed by the new trial date. This is reflected by minute order of December 8, 2023.

Motion to Extend Discovery Cutoff by CVPS2200456 POTTER vs WELSH DEONTAY POTTER Tentative Ruling: Matter taken off calendar by court. Court previously continued trial to August 30, 2024 and ALL DISCOVERY AND TRIAL RELATED DEADLINES governed by the new trial date. This is reflected by minute order of December 8, 2023.

Extending the discovery cut-off will avoid an unnecessary rush for discovery as trial is not currently set. (Dean Decl. ¶¶ 13-14.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion to extend the discovery deadline to follow the new trial date is GRANTED. Sanctions Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record to reimburse Defendants for the cost of bringing the instant motion.

Defendant Mehrdadi's Motion to Extend Time for Trial Setting Process is dropped at the request of defense counsel. All parties stipulated to the extension and the Ex Parte Application to Extend Time to Select Trial Date was filed on September 8, 2010.

The motion to extend discovery is vacated. Such motions are to be heard in law and motion.

City of Los Angeles 21STCV29583 Defendants Motion to Continue Trial Defendants Motion to Extend Deadline to File Motion for Summary Judgment Tentative The motions are denied.

The fact discovery cut-off is March 17, 2024 and currently follows the previous trial date of March 27, 2024. On February 16, 2024, Defendants submitted an ex parte application to continue the trial and all related dates. The Court continued the trial date from March 27, 2024, to July 29, 2024 but specified that any reopening of discovery would require a stipulation or a noticed motion. On April 15, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to extend the discovery cut-off date with a hearing set for May 9, 2024.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 2024CUBC020215: AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES vs KINGDOM HOSPITALITY GROUP 10/09/2025 in Department 21 Motion to Continue Trial re: Extend or Reopen Discovery Cutoff Dates Motion: Motion by Plaintiff American Technologies, Inc. (Plaintiff or ATI) to continue trial date and related dates (unopposed). Tentative Ruling: Plaintiffs motion to extend/reopen discovery cutoff dates is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs Notice Of Motion To Extend Discovery Cutoff Set for hearing on Monday, August 8, 2016, Line 11, PLAINTIFF ED ANNUNZIATA'S Motion To Extend Discovery Cutoff. The motion is DENIED. The discovery cutoff was six weeks ago. Discovery is not the only means for securing documents for trial; e.g., a notice to produce may be served under CCP ?1987(c).

The court finds that this case was previously ordered to trial setting by Judge DeAlba, that five years should be sufficient to prepare this case for trial and that the matter should be given a trial date within the statutory period. As a consequence the court will set this case for trial on July 12, 2010.

NATURE OF PROCEEDING: MOTION TO EXTEND REFERRAL TO TRIAL SETTING This matter was continued from 08/26/2010 for oral argument on the Court's tentative ruling. Appearance is required. TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs' objection to the defendants' motion on the grounds that a notice of motion and motion was not timely served is OVERRULED. Defendants' motion to extend referral to trial setting is DENIED.

Trial is currently scheduled for October 21, 2022. PARTYS REQUESTS Plaintiffs request the Court extend the discovery cut-off to allow for the deposition of Plaintiffs expert, and continue trial as needed. LEGAL STANDARD CCP § 2024.050 provides: (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.

Motion To Extend Hearing Date On Motion For Summary Judgment/Or Adjudication MOTON FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SETTING HEARING UP TO 14 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL GRANTED TO BOTH PARTIES. (JH)

Motion to Continue Discovery Moving Party: Defendant Neil Moffatt RP: Unopposed Defendant’s unopposed motion to extend discovery cutoff (ROA 64) is GRANTED. Trial in this matter was set for 5-24-21. In approximately March 2021, Defendant began to undergo treatment for colon cancer which interfered with his ability to conduct discovery in this matter. On 5-3-21, the trial date was continued to 1-24-22 (ROA 72).

At the Trial Readiness Conference held the same day, the Court scheduled the Final Status Conference for 03/06/2026 and the non-jury trial for 03/23/2026.

Although Gayle has since received a deed back, eliminating the encumbrance, Gayle may attempt to transfer or encumber the property if Plaintiffs attachment lien if it is not extended to a date after trial is held. Accordingly, the motion to extend the attachment for an additional period of one-year is GRANTED.

On December 20, 2018, the court granted Creditor's motion to extend the lien created by service of the January 3, 2018 order to December 31, 2020. (Id. ¶ 11 Ex. C.)

Tentative ruling for November 14, 2016 on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony, Extend the Discovery Cutoff and Trial Dates and Request for Sanctions Take motion to compel deposition off calendar as moot. Defendants have represented they would produce the subject witnesses on 11/11/16 for deposition. Discuss motion to extend discovery cutoff date to correspond with the continued trial date.

NATURE OF PROCEEDING: MOTION TO EXTEND REFERRAL TO TRIAL SETTING No appearance is required under the following conditions: Plaintiffs' objection to the defendants' motion on the grounds that a notice of motion and motion was not timely served is OVERRULED. Defendants' motion to extend referral to trial setting is DENIED.

Defendant’s alternative request to continue the trial date is also DENIED. Trial is currently set for 11/12/19. There is no good cause to continue trial based on Defendant’s failure to complete his discovery during the time allowed. Plaintiff was amenable to continuing the deposition, but Defendant refused for no good reason.

On May 31, 2023, Huber/Sutliff filed an ex parte motion for an order continuing trial and all trial-related deadlines based on new defense counsel entering the case and needing time to prepare for trial. At this point, trial was set for July 17, 2023. On June 1, 2023, the court granted the ex parte motion, in part, and vacated the trial date. However, the court did not re-open discovery nor move any discovery related deadlines beyond the original July 17, 2023 trial date.

On May 31, 2023, Huber/Sutliff filed an ex parte motion for an order continuing trial and all trial-related deadlines based on new defense counsel entering the case and needing time to prepare for trial. At this point, trial was set for July 17, 2023. On June 1, 2023, the court granted the ex parte motion, in part, and vacated the trial date. However, the court did not re-open discovery nor move any discovery related deadlines beyond the original July 17, 2023 trial date.

On May 31, 2023, Huber/Sutliff filed an ex parte motion for an order continuing trial and all trial-related deadlines based on new defense counsel entering the case and needing time to prepare for trial. At this point, trial was set for July 17, 2023. On June 1, 2023, the court granted the ex parte motion, in part, and vacated the trial date. However, the court did not re-open discovery nor move any discovery related deadlines beyond the original July 17, 2023 trial date.

On May 31, 2023, Huber/Sutliff filed an ex parte motion for an order continuing trial and all trial-related deadlines based on new defense counsel entering the case and needing time to prepare for trial. At this point, trial was set for July 17, 2023. On June 1, 2023, the court granted the ex parte motion, in part, and vacated the trial date. However, the court did not re-open discovery nor move any discovery related deadlines beyond the original July 17, 2023 trial date.

On May 31, 2023, Huber/Sutliff filed an ex parte motion for an order continuing trial and all trial-related deadlines based on new defense counsel entering the case and needing time to prepare for trial. At this point, trial was set for July 17, 2023. On June 1, 2023, the court granted the ex parte motion, in part, and vacated the trial date. However, the court did not re-open discovery nor move any discovery related deadlines beyond the original July 17, 2023 trial date.

On May 31, 2023, Huber/Sutliff filed an ex parte motion for an order continuing trial and all trial-related deadlines based on new defense counsel entering the case and needing time to prepare for trial. At this point, trial was set for July 17, 2023. On June 1, 2023, the court granted the ex parte motion, in part, and vacated the trial date. However, the court did not re-open discovery nor move any discovery related deadlines beyond the original July 17, 2023 trial date.

On May 31, 2023, Huber/Sutliff filed an ex parte motion for an order continuing trial and all trial-related deadlines based on new defense counsel entering the case and needing time to prepare for trial. At this point, trial was set for July 17, 2023. On June 1, 2023, the court granted the ex parte motion, in part, and vacated the trial date. However, the court did not re-open discovery nor move any discovery related deadlines beyond the original July 17, 2023 trial date.

On May 31, 2023, Huber/Sutliff filed an ex parte motion for an order continuing trial and all trial-related deadlines based on new defense counsel entering the case and needing time to prepare for trial. At this point, trial was set for July 17, 2023. On June 1, 2023, the court granted the ex parte motion, in part, and vacated the trial date. However, the court did not re-open discovery nor move any discovery related deadlines beyond the original July 17, 2023 trial date.

In selecting an appropriate discovery sanction, the trial court exercises broad discretion, which will be reversed only for a manifest abuse of discretion. (Ibid.) Sanctions require two prerequisites: a failure to comply with discovery and a willful failure to do so. (Ibid.) III. Application At the outset, the Court notes that the motion to extend time and the motion for terminating sanctions are discussed together.

CASE NO: BC595743 TENTATIVE] ORDER TAKING MOTION OFF CALENDAR On 3/09/17, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to extend this case until she could retain an attorney. On 4/05/17, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney, such that this motion is now moot. Of note, trial in this action was scheduled to commence on 4/25/17, which also renders the motion moot.

The initial trial date was September 6, 2016. (1/4/2016 Minute Order.) Trial was continued several times and is currently set for October 15, 2018. On October 6, 2017, the court continued trial to April 30, 2018, but expressly noted that discovery and trial-related dates were not extended “but may be raised in a properly noticed motion”. (10/6/2017 Minute Order.) At the ex parte hearing, the court encouraged the parties to stipulate to discovery extensions, to avoid motions from being filed.

The initial trial date was September 6, 2016. (1/4/2016 Minute Order.) Trial was continued several times and is currently set for October 15, 2018. On October 6, 2017, the court continued trial to April 30, 2018, but expressly noted that discovery and trial-related dates were not extended “but may be raised in a properly noticed motion”. (10/6/2017 Minute Order.) At the ex parte hearing, the court encouraged the parties to stipulate to discovery extensions, to avoid motions from being filed.

The motion to extend the 180 day period for defendant’s surrender after forfeiture is untimely. Therefore, the court denies the motion of Brian Gooch of Santa Barbara Bail Bonds on behalf of American Surety Company to vacate summary judgment and to extend the 180 day period on bail bond pursuant to Penal Code § 1305.4.

The motion to extend the 180 day period for defendant’s surrender after forfeiture is untimely. Therefore, the court denies the motion of Brian Gooch of Santa Barbara Bail Bonds on behalf of American Surety Company to vacate summary judgment and to extend the 180 day period on bail bond pursuant to Penal Code § 1305.4.

.: 21STCV20276 Hearing Date: 8/2/23 Trial Date: N/A [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Defendant FPI Management, Inc.s Motion to Extend Time to File Demurrer and Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Complaint.

s motion to continue settlement conference and trial currently set for March 1, 2012 and March 19, 2012 is GRANTED. JDS Builders' motion to extend the discovery cut-off dates is also GRANTED. Those dates shall be calculated based upon the new trial dates. The court finds good cause to continue trial given the stipulation of the parties and JDS Builders' counsel's trial conflicts. This case is referred to Trial Setting Process for selection of Trial and Mandatory Settlement Conference dates.

Pro se litigants are subjected& to the same restrictive rules of procedure as does any trial lawyer. ( Monastero v. Los Angeles Transit Co . (1955) 131 Cal.App.3d 156, 160.) A doctrine generally requiring or permitting exceptional treatment of parties who represent themselves would lead to a quagmire in the trial courts, and would be unfair to the other parties to litigation. ( Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 985.)

Motion to Extend Discovery Defendant Dorothy Buckner’s motion to extend discovery is denied. Defendant’s motion references Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, relating to an extension of the discovery cut-off date, and the deadline to have motions concerning discovery heard in relation to the trial date. However, the substance of defendant’s motion appears to seek an extension of the 45-day deadline to file a motion to compel further discovery responses.

.: 21STCV01552 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CUTOFF AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS Dept. 3 8:30 a.m. April 17, 2025 On March 17, 2025, plaintiffs Ahmad and Nafiseh Heidari (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this motion for an order extending the discovery cutoff to correspond with the recently continued trial date of November 3, 2025.

CV-22-002302 – ROCHA, FERNANDO vs TRUJILLO, DIANA LISBETH HERNANDEZ – Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Hearing Date of MSJ or Compel Witnesses – GRANTED. The Court believes it would be in the interests of justice to set the hearing date on Defendant Ontrac’s Motion for Summary Judgment in conjunction with setting the new trial and settlement conference dates. 

Trial is currently scheduled for April 15, 2024. PARTYS REQUEST Bolton requests that the Court re-open discovery and expert discovery to follow the current trial date.

Good cause appearing, and no opposition having been received, defendants Paul David Laski, M.D. and Rubin Orthopedics' motion to continue settlement conference and trial currently set for January 30, 2012 and February 6, 2012, respectively, is GRANTED. Defendants motion to extend all trial related deadlines is also GRANTED. Those deadlines shall be calculated based upon the new trial date.

Trial originally was set for September 5, 2019. The original deadline to file a C.C.P. § 425.13 motion was December 5, 2018. On August 31, 2018, St. Francis filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and the action was stayed. The stay was lifted on January 11, 2019. At the trial setting conference on January 11, 2019, trial was reset for January 27, 2020. On December 4, 2018, Robles filed her first motion to extend the punitive damages deadline.

TENTATIVE Defendant Cookies Creative Consulting & Promotions, Inc.s Motion to Extend Stay is GRANTED. Defendant to provide notice. DISCUSSION Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency. (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) The decision of a trial court to stay proceedings is thus generally a matter of discretion. (Bains v. Moores (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 445, 480.)

Plaintiff's motion to continue trial currently set for April 17, 2012 is DENIED. In light of the denial of the motion to continue, plaintiff's motion to extend discovery is also DENIED. Plaintiff brought an ex parte application to continue trial in this wages and hours case on March 23, 2012. Plaintiff argues that a continuance is necessary as defendants have failed to cooperate and have repeatedly delayed discovery in this case.

Good cause appearing, and the parties having stipulated thereto, plaintiff's motion to continue trial currently set for July 7, 2009 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion to extend the discovery cut-off date and expert witness disclosure dates are also GRANTED. These dates shall be calculated based upon the new trial date. The court finds good cause to continue and extend the trial related dates given the stipulation of the parties and plaintiff's counsel's health concerns.

Good cause appearing, and the parties having stipulated thereto, plaintiff's motion to continue settlement conference and trial currently set for June 3, 2009 and June 29, 2009, respectively, is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion to extend the discovery cut-off date and expert witness disclosure date is also GRANTED. Such dates shall be calculated based upon the new trial date.

This thirty-day time limit is calculated based on the trial date at the time that the motion is noticed, irrespective of whether that date is the original trial date or not. ( Green v. Bristol Myers Co. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 605, 609 ( Green ).) As the trial date has been continued to August 25, 2025, the last day to file and serve any motion, and the last day for any motion to be heard, are to be calculated from the August 25, 2025 trial date.

Defendants’ request to extend the discovery cutoff to the new trial date concerning Dr. Pospisil pursuant to the parties’ stipulation is granted. Defendants’ motion to extend the trial cut-off is denied in all other regards. Defendants to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT92@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.

On October 14, 2021, Defendant filed three motions: One motion to extend expert discovery and two motions to compel the depositions of Plaintiffs non-retained experts, Isadore Wendel, Ph.D (Dr. Wendel), and Wayne Choy, D.C. (Dr. Choy) Trial is currently scheduled for March 23, 2022, having been continued from October 5, 2021. Defendant seeks an extension of expert discovery to allow for the depositions of Drs. Wendel and Choy.

Good cause appearing, and the parties having stipulated thereto, defendants' motion to continue settlement conference and trial currently set for October 18, 2010 and November 23, 2010 is GRANTED. Defendants' motion to extend the discovery cut-off date is also GRANTED. The discovery cut-off date shall be calculate based upon the new trial date.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER Defendant’s motion to extend the discovery and motions cut-off dates are granted. These dates shall be based on the new trial date. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: March 17, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

CONCLUSION AND ORDER Defendant’s motion to extend the discovery and motions cut-off dates are granted. These dates shall be based on the new trial date. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: June 24, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

Defendant Charrise Lockhart’s Motion to Extend Discovery Cut-Off Dates or Alternatively Reopen Discovery is GRANTED. CCP § 2024.050. Each time an action is tried, the trial court sets an “initial” (i.e., “first” or “beginning”) date for the actual trial, and that date controls the discovery cutoff for the trial to which it relates.

The parties were ordered to file a motion to extend the stay if they sought to keep the stay in place. No such motion has been filed. The Court finds that this matter is no longer stayed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to provide the Court with a status of the litigation including the status of discovery. If appropriate, the Court will also set the matter for trial.

The parties were ordered to file a motion to extend the stay if they sought to keep the stay in place. No such motion has been filed. The Court finds that this matter is no longer stayed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to provide the Court with a status of the litigation including the status of discovery. If appropriate, the Court will also set the matter for trial.

The parties were ordered to file a motion to extend the stay if they sought to keep the stay in place. No such motion has been filed. The Court finds that this matter is no longer stayed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to provide the Court with a status of the litigation including the status of discovery. If appropriate, the Court will also set the matter for trial.

The parties were ordered to file a motion to extend the stay if they sought to keep the stay in place. No such motion has been filed. The Court finds that this matter is no longer stayed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to provide the Court with a status of the litigation including the status of discovery. If appropriate, the Court will also set the matter for trial.

The parties were ordered to file a motion to extend the stay if they sought to keep the stay in place. No such motion has been filed. The Court finds that this matter is no longer stayed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to provide the Court with a status of the litigation including the status of discovery. If appropriate, the Court will also set the matter for trial.

The parties were ordered to file a motion to extend the stay if they sought to keep the stay in place. No such motion has been filed. The Court finds that this matter is no longer stayed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to provide the Court with a status of the litigation including the status of discovery. If appropriate, the Court will also set the matter for trial.

The parties were ordered to file a motion to extend the stay if they sought to keep the stay in place. No such motion has been filed. The Court finds that this matter is no longer stayed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to provide the Court with a status of the litigation including the status of discovery. If appropriate, the Court will also set the matter for trial.

The parties were ordered to file a motion to extend the stay if they sought to keep the stay in place. No such motion has been filed. The Court finds that this matter is no longer stayed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to provide the Court with a status of the litigation including the status of discovery. If appropriate, the Court will also set the matter for trial.

Good cause appearing, and the parties having stipulated thereto, defendant LG Enterprises, LLC dba Logan's Roadhouse's motion to continue settlement conference and trial currently set for November 9, 2010 and December 28, 2010, respectively, is GRANTED. The motion to extend the discovery cut-off dates and other trial related date is also GRANTED. The discovery cut-off dates and other trial related dates shall be calculated based upon the new trial date.

Good cause appearing, and no opposition having been filed, defendants' motion to continue trial currently set for August 3, 2009 is GRANTED. Defendants' motion to extend discovery cut-off dates and expert witness disclosure dates is also GRANTED. These trial related dates shall be based upon the new trial date. The court finds good cause to continue and extend the trial related dates based upon the absence of opposition and defendants' expert's unavailability on the scheduled trial date.

Good cause appearing, and the parties having stipulated thereto, defendants' motion to continue trial currently set for September 20, 2011 is GRANTED. Defendants' motion to extend discovery and other trial related dates is GRANTED. Those dates shall be calculated based upon the new trial date.

Proc. 6th Trial § 219(1) (2021).) Safe Harbor: The motion was served on ReadyLink on May 14, 2025, thirty-seven days prior to the filing of this motion. Therefore, SCIF complied with the safe harbor requirements. Sanctions: Here, SCIF asserts that the motion to extend time and the motion to tax were frivolously filed. The motion to tax was never heard after the court denied the motion to extend time.

(2) Motion to Extend Deadlines CCP § 2024.050(a) provides that a party may move to extend the deadline to complete discovery proceedings and to hear discovery motions. CCP § 203.230(b) also provides that a court may order a later or earlier date of exchanging information concerning expert trial witnesses. Although trial is set for June 9, plaintiff just filed the third amended complaint on May 4. Plaintiff served it by mail, giving defendant until June 8 to respond.

(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. (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). ANALYSIS 1.

Case Number: 21STCV27522 Hearing Date: September 5, 2023 Dept: 57 Pending before the Court is Defendant Advalight Corp's ("Advalight") motion to extend the discovery and expert discovery cut-off dates so that they are tied to the new date for the trial that the Court will be setting. The Court is granting Advalight's motion. The Court will set the new trial date, and hence the discovery and expert discovery cut-off dates as well, at the upcoming case management conference.

Plaintiff's motion to continue trial currently set for August 30, 2010 is DENIED for the reasons set forth below. Plaintiff's motion to extend the discovery cut-off dates is also DENIED. In support of his motion to continue trial plaintiff Larry Bell sets forth a laundry list of reasons for a continuance.

In the meantime, Judgment Creditor is ordered to confirm Judgment Debtor’s new address and successfully personally serve Judgment Debtor with any new motion to extend the ORAP Lien.

s motion to continue settlement conference and trial currently set for May 8, 2012 and June 4, 2012, respectively, is GRANTED. Defendants' motion to extend the various trial related dates is also GRANTED. Those dates shall be calculated based upon the new trial date. The court finds good cause to continue settlement conference and trial and the various trial related dates given the stipulation of the parties and the parties need for additional time to complete discovery.

s (hereinafter "Mourier") motion to continue settlement conference and trial currently set for January 5, 2010 and February 8, 2010, respectively, in this construction defects action is DENIED for the reasons set forth below. Mourier's motion to extend the various trial related cut-off dates is also DENIED. Mourier moves to continue trial and settlement conference on the grounds that it named three new cross-defendants, formerly designated as Roe defendants, on September 14, 2009.