Preview
1 Todd A. Jones (Bar No. 198024)
tjones@mvjllp.com
2 Bryan T. Bjorge (Bar No. 229244) ELECTRONICALLY
3
bbjorge@mvjllp.com FILED
MOKRI VANIS & JONES, LLP Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
4 3620 American River Drive, Suite 218
Sacramento, California 95864 05/10/2022
Clerk of the Court
5 Telephone: 916.306.0434 BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE
Facsimile: 949.226.7150 Deputy Clerk
6
Attorneys for Defendant
7
RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE,
8 LLC
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
11
12
1367 NATOMA ST SF, LLC, a California Case No.: CGC-20-584041
13 limited liability corporation,
RELIANCE BUILDING AND
14 Plaintiff, MAINTENANCE, LLC’S STIPULATED
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO
15 v. CONTINUE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY
CUT-OFF DATE; DECLARATION OF
16 RELIANCE BUILDING AND BRYAN T. BJORGE; STIPULATION TO
MAINTENANCE, LLC, DOES 1-50, inclusive, CONTINUE TRIAL; [PROPOSED]
17 ORDER
Defendants.
18 Complaint Filed: April 3, 2020
Trial Date: July 5, 2022
19
Ex Parte: May 11, 2022 – 11:00 a.m.
20
Judge: Hon. S. Feng
21 TO COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF
22 RECORD:
23 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 11, 2022, at 11 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter
24 may be heard in Department 206 of the above-entitled Court located at 400 McAllister St., San
25 Francisco, CA 94102 Defendant RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC (“Defendant”)
26 will and hereby does apply to the Court ex parte to continue the Trial presently set for July 5, 2022,
27 and all related discovery cut-off dates and trial-related deadlines. The parties have stipulated to
28 acontinuance.
1
DEFENDANT RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC’S
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
1 This Ex Parte Application is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 128, California
2 Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, and San Francisco Superior Court Local Rule 6.0(B), and is based on the
3 grounds that good cause exists to continue the trial date and all related discovery cut-off dates and trial-
4 related deadlines due to the medical condition of counsel for Plaintiff, and so that the parties, both
5 Reliance and plaintiff, 1367 Natoma St SF LLC (“Plaintiff), have ample time to complete the following:
6 Complete written discovery, obtain subpoenaed documents; take party, person most knowledgeable, and
7 percipient witness depositions; conduct expert discovery, including expert depositions; and fully prepare
8 the case for trial. The parties have discussed mediation either just after the written discovery phase or
9 after key depositions – and a continuance is required to facilitate those efforts. There have been no prior
10 trial continuances. The parties have stipulated to this trial continuance.
11 This Ex Parte Application is based on this Notice, the attached Declaration of Bryan T. Bjorge,
12 the Stipulation to Continue the Trial, the [Proposed] Order, and any exhibits or other documents on file
13 with the Court, and upon such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the time of hearing.
14 All parties were notified on or before May 9, 2022, prior to scheduled hearing that this Ex
15 Parte Application would be presented on May 11, 2022, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 206 of the above-
16 entitled Court, as set forth more fully in the attached Declaration of Bryan T. Bjorge.
17 Dated: May 9, 2022 MOKRI VANIS & JONES, LLP
18
19
Todd A. Jones
20
Bryan T. Bjorge
21 Attorneys for Defendant RELIANCE
BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
DEFENDANT RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC’S
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
3 Plaintiff, 1367 NATOMA ST SF, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges construction defects, breach of
4 contract, and fraud claims related to demolition and remodel work performed by Defendant RELIANCE
5 BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC (“Defendant” or “Reliance”) on a multi-unit residential
6 property located at 1367 Natoma St., San Francisco, CA (the “Property”). (Bjorge Decl., ¶ 2).
7 Good cause exists for a continuance of the trial date, and related pre-trial deadlines and discovery
8 cut-offs, to accommodate ample time for all discovery and settlement efforts to be exhausted prior to
9 trial. (Bjorge Decl., ¶ 3).
10 II. THE COURT HAS POWER TO GRANT A CONTINUANCE OF THE TRIAL
11 DATE
12
The Court has the inherent power to grant a trial continuance. Code of Civil Procedure Section
13
128; Curtis vs. Underwood (1894) 101 Cal. 661, 669. “That the court had power to continue the
14
hearing . . . we do not doubt. The jurisdiction to hear and determine a cause or proceedings involves the
15
power to postpone for good cause the time of hearing, unless prohibited by positive law.” Id. at 669.
16
California Rules of Court Rule 3.1332 authorizes the continuance of a trial date via application or motion
17
upon an affirmative showing of good cause, as follows:
18
(c) Grounds for continuance
19
20 Although continuation of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be
considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative
21 showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good
cause include:
22
(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or
23 other excusable circumstances:
24 (2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable
circumstances;
25 (3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable
circumstances;
26 (4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that
the substitution is required in the interest of justice;
27
(5) The addition of a new party:
28
3
DEFENDANT RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC’S
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
1 (A) the new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and
prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s involvement in the case;
2 (B) the other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery
and prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s involvement in the case;
3
(6) A party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material
4 evidence despite diligent efforts; or
(7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the
5 case is not ready for trial.”
6
Rule 3.1332(d) further provides in relevant part as follows:
7
8 “(d) Other factors to be considered
In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts
9 and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include:
10 (1) The proximity of the trial date;
(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial date
11 due to any party;
(3) The length of the continuance requested;
12 (4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the
motion or application for a continuance;
13
(5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;
14 (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and
whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;
15 (7) The court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;
(8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;
16 (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;
(10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the
17
matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and
18 (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or
application.”
19
Here, the factors listed in Rule 3.1332 weigh heavily in favor of a continuance of the trial date,
20
most specifically as follows: The parties have stipulated to continuing the trial - so the parties have agreed
21
that there is no prejudice to either party. (Bjorge Decl., ¶ 4) There have been no prior trial continuances.
22
(Bjorge Decl., ¶ 5).
23
Trial counsel for Plaintiff, James Quadra, is currently unable to attend trial in person due to a
24
medical condition and the fact that his doctor has not yet cleared him to attend in-person trials. (Bjorge
25
Decl., ¶9, Exh. C.) Mr. Quadra is scheduled to be re-evaluated at the end of June, as his doctor anticipates
26
he will be ready to return to in-person trials at that time, but until he is re-evaluated, there is uncertainty
27
as to whether he will be able to attend a trial in person on the first business day of July.
28
4
DEFENDANT RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC’S
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
1 Additionally, Reliance was a suspended entity with the California Secretary of State from on or
2 about February 17, 2021 (and perhaps earlier but date of suspension unknown) until correction and
3 revival to good standing on or about August 26, 2021. (Bjorge Decl., ¶ 7). This period delayed discovery
4 for both parties. (Bjorge Decl., ¶ 7). Lastly, the parties intend to mediate this case, and would prefer to
5 do so after the completion of written discovery, and either before or directly after key depositions. If the
6 parties were to shift into trial preparation mode, and then the case would become more expensive quickly
7 and be rendered more difficult to settle prior to trial. (Bjorge Decl., ¶ 8).
8 Courts may be liberal in granting continuances when the facts justify such action. "It may be
9 conceded that the facts given, as an explanation of appellant's absence from the trial, if properly
10 presented to the trial court, and in the absence of any lack of diligence, were not only sufficient to
11 entitle him to a continuance, but were sufficient to make the failure to grant the motion an abuse of
12 discretion. It is unquestionably true, as claimed by appellant, that the disposition of the court is to show
13 great liberality in granting continuances in civil cases, when it is fairly apparent that to do otherwise
14 will have the effect of denying to the applicant the right to his day in court." Ross vs. Thirlwall (1929)
15 101 Cal.App. 411, 415.
16 III. CONCLUSION
17 Based on the foregoing, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant the present Ex Parte
18 Application to Continue the Trial Date (and related discovery cut-offs and trial related deadlines)
19 Defendant and Plaintiff have agreed that a continuance from the current July 5, 2022 trial date to a new
20 date on or about six months out to January 5, 2023, or in the alternative, to a date at least three months
21 from the present trial date to a new date on or after October 3, 2022, would allow Mr. Quadra the ability
22 to clear him in advance of trial to return to in-person trials, and to allow the parties adequate time to
23 conduct discovery in a timely fashion and exhaust settlement efforts prior to trial.
24 Dated: May 9, 2022 MOKRI VANIS & JONES, LLP
25
26
Todd A. Jones
27
Bryan T. Bjorge
28 Attorneys for Defendant RELIANCE
BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC
5
DEFENDANT RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC’S
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
1 DECLARATION OF BRYAN T. BJORGE
2 I, Bryan T. Bjorge, declare as follows:
3 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all of the Courts in the State of
4 California. I am a associate with the law firm of MOKRI VANIS & JONES, counsel of record for
5 Defendant RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC (“Reliance”) in this action. I make
6 this Declaration in support of Defendant Reliance Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date and
7 Discovery Cut-Off Date. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration and, if
8 called as a witness, could and would testify competently to such facts under oath.
9 2. This case arises out of plaintiff’s, 1367 NATOMA ST SF, LLC (“Plaintiff”) allegations
10 of construction defects, breach of contract, and fraud claims related to demolition and remodel work
11 performed by Defendant RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC (“Defendant” or
12 “Reliance”) on a multi-unit residential property located at 1367 Natoma St., San Francisco, CA (the
13 “Property”).
14 3. Good cause exists for a continuance of the Trial Date and discovery cut-off date, to
15 accommodate the ample time for all discovery, mediation, and for settlement efforts to be exhausted prior
16 to trial.
17 4. Plaintiff has stipulated to the trial continuance to a date six months from the present Trial
18 date to a date on or about January 5, 2023, or in the alternative, to a date at least three months from the
19 present Trial date to a new date on or after October 3, 2022. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and
20 correct copy of the parties Stipulation to Continue Trial.
21 5. The Trial Date in this matter has not previously been continued.
22 6. The following parties were notified on May 9, 2022, that this Ex Parte Application
23 would be presented on May 11, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. in Department 206 of the above-entitled Court
24 located at 400 McAllister St., San Francisco, CA 90016: Rebecca Coll, Esq. of Quadra & Coll, LLP,
25 counsel for Plaintiff at rcoll@quadracoll.com., and other employees of her law firm. Attached hereto
26 as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the e-mail to Plaintiff’s counsel providing Ex Parte Notice.
27 7. On information and belief, Reliance was a suspended entity with the California Secretary
28 of State from on or about February 17, 2021 (and perhaps earlier but date of suspension unknown) until
6
DEFENDANT RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC’S
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
1 correction and revival to good standing on or about August 26, 2021. This period delayed discovery for
2 both parties.
3 8. The parties intend to mediate this case and would prefer to do so after the completion of
4 written discovery, and either before or directly after key depositions. If the parties were to shift into trial
5 preparation mode, and then the case would become more expensive quickly and be rendered more
6 difficult to settle prior to trial.
7 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a letter provided by counsel for
8 Plaintiff regarding James Quadra’s medical condition.
9 I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is
10 true and correct.
11 Executed this May 9, 2022, at Sacramento, California.
12
13 ______________________________
Bryan T. Bjorge, Declarant
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
DEFENDANT RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC’S
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
EXHIBIT A
1 Todd A. Jones (Bar No. 198024)
tjones@mvjllp.com
2 Bryan T. Bjorge (Bar No. 229244)
bbjorge@mvjllp.com
3
MOKRI VANIS & JONES, LLP
4 3620 American River Drive, Suite 218
Sacramento, California 95864
5 Telephone: 916.306.0434
Facsimile: 949.226.7150
6
Attorneys for Defendant
7
RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE,
8 LLC
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
11
12
1367 NATOMA ST SF, LLC, a California Case No.: CGC-20-584041
13 limited liability corporation,
STIPULATION IN SUPPORT OF
14 Plaintiff, RELIANCE BUILDING AND
MAINTENANCE, LLC’S EX PARTE
15 v. APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
AND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE
16 RELIANCE BUILDING AND
MAINTENANCE, LLC, DOES 1-50, inclusive,
17 Complaint Filed: April 3, 2020
Defendants. Trial Date: July 5, 2022
18
19 TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
20 AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION
21 The following Stipulation for Continuance of the Trial is made by and between the parties to this
22 action, defendant RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC (“Defendant”) and plaintiff,
23 1367 NATOMA ST SF, LLC (“Plaintiff”), by and through their respective attorneys of record herein, with
24 reference to the following:
25 WHEREAS, discovery was delayed due in part to the corporate suspension of Defendant, that
26 has since been cured.
27 WHEREAS, the parties are currently engaged in the written discovery phase.
28 WHEREAS, the parties intend to participate in private mediation either after the written discovery
1
STIPULATION RE RELIANCE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE
1 phase or after the key depositions have been taken. The mediation will have a greater chance of success
2 if the parties have not already been forced to incur the fees and costs associated with completing all
3 depositions, conducting expert discovery, and commencing trial preparation;
4 WHEREAS, the parties therefore all agree that a continuance of the current July 5, 2023, is
5 appropriate, and needed to efficiently proceed with litigating this matter without incurring additional
6 expenses based on the impending trial date.
7 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, through their
8 respective counsel, as follows:
9 1. That the Trial currently set for July 5, 2022, be vacated and reset for six months from the
10 present Trial date to a date on or about January 5, 2023, or in the alternative, to a date at least three months
11 from the present Trial date to a new date on or after October 3, 2022;
12 2. That all related dates including the discovery cut-off date, and any pre-trial deadlines be
13 vacated and reset pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, California Rules of Court, and any Local Rules
14 be based upon the new Trial date;
15 3. This stipulation may be executed in counterparts, with the same force and effect as if
16 executed in one complete document. An electronic and/or facsimile copy of this stipulation and the
17 signatures hereto shall carry the same force and effect as the original.
18 Party signatures on following page:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION RE RELIANCE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE
1 IT IS SO STIPULATED.
2
3 Dated: May _____,
9 2022 MOKRI VANIS & JONES, LLP
4
5
Todd A. Jones
6
Bryan T. Bjorge
7 Attorneys for Defendant RELIANCE
BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC
8
9
10
11
Dated: May 7, 2022 QUADRA & COLL, LLP
12
13
14 James A. Quadra
Rebecca Coll
15 Robert D. Sanford
Attorneys for Plaintiff 1367 NATOMA ST SF,
16 LLC
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION RE RELIANCE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE
EXHIBIT B
From: Bryan Bjorge
To: Rebecca Coll
Cc: James Quadra; Robert Sanford; Vanessa Buffington; Yolanda Bullock
Subject: 1367 Natoma St SF, LLC v. Reliance Building re Ex Parte Application to Continue, Stipulation
Date: Monday, May 9, 2022 11:55:54 AM
Attachments: 1367 Ex Parte App to Cont. Trial-signed.pdf
Rebecca,
(as discussed) Please see attached Ex Parte Application to Continue the Trial, the parties’ executed
Stipulation thereto, and supporting pleadings and exhibits.
This e-mail shall constitute timely notice of the Ex Parte in conformity with the CCP and local rules.
The remote hearing shall be heard Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 11 a.m. (via courtcall or Zoom, we
will advise when the appearance method is confirmed with the Court.
Yours truly,
Bryan
Bryan T. Bjorge
Special Counsel
MOKRI VANIS & JONES, LLP
3620 American River Dr., Suite 218
Sacramento, CA 95864
Main 916.306.0434 | Fax 949.226.7150
email: bbjorge@mvjllp.com
www.mvjllp.com
EXHIBIT C
Karim Touijer, MD
Associate Attending Urologist
Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancer
April 27th, 2022
Patient Name: Quadra, James
Date of Birth: 9/17/1960
To whom it may concern:
Mr. James Quadra is a patient of mine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center who
underwent a surgical procedure on February 10th,2022. Due to the nature of this procedure and
his post-operative restrictions, Mr. Quadra cannot attend in-person trials until he is cleared to do
so by me. I will re-evaluate Mr. Quadra’s recovery will be re-evaluated at the end of June as I
anticipate that is when he will be able to return to in-person trials.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at 646-422-
4486. If you need to send or request additional documents, my fax number is 212-988-0768.
Sincerely,
Karim Touijer, MD
Department of Surgery/Urology
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
1275 York Avenue, New York, New York 10065
Telephone 646.422.4432•Fax 212.988.0760
NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 1367 Natoma St SF, LLC v. Reliance Building and Maintenance, LLC
San Francisco County Superior Court Action No. CGC-20-584041
3
I, the undersigned, declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action
4 or proceeding. My business address is 3620 American River Drive, Suite 218, Sacramento, California
95864. On the date indicated below, I caused the following document(s) to be served:
5
RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC’S STIPULATED EX PARTE
6 APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE;
DECLARATION OF BRYAN T. BJORGE; STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL;
7 [PROPOSED] ORDER
8
9 by placing a true copy of the document(s) listed above, enclosed in a sealed envelope,
addressed as set forth below, for collection and mailing on the date and at the business address
10 shown above following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this
business’ practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the
11 United States Postal Service. On the same day that a sealed envelope is placed for collection
and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal
12 Service with postage fully prepaid.
13 by placing a true copy of the document(s) listed above, in a box or other facility regularly
maintained by Federal Express (FedEx), an express service carrier, or delivered to a courier
14 or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, in an envelope
designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed
15 as set forth below.
16 I electronically served the above referenced document(s) through File & Serve Xpress. E-
service in this action was completed on all parties listed on the service list with File & Serve
17 Xpress. This service complies with the court’s order in this case.
18 BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept
service by electronic transmission, and in compliance with C.C.P. §§ 1010.6(2)(A)(ii) and
19 1010.6(e)(1), I caused the documents to be electronically sent to the persons on the attached
20 service list. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic
message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
21
22 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
23 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 9, 2022,
at Sacramento, California.
24
25
Yplanda Bullock
26 Yolanda Bullock
27
28
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 SERVICE LIST
2
James A. Quadra Attorneys for Plaintiff
3 Rebecca Coll 1367 NATOMA ST SF, LLC
Robert D. Sanford
4 QUADRA & COLL, LLP T: 415.426.3502
649 Mission Street, Fifth Floor F: 415.625.9936
5 San Francisco, CA 94105 E: jquadra@quadracoll.com;
rcoll@quadracoll.com;
6 admin@quadracoll.com
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
1 Todd A. Jones (Bar No. 198024) tjones@mvjllp.com 2 Bryan T. Bjorge (Bar No. 229244) ELECTRONICALLY 3 bbjorge@mvjllp.com FILED MOKRI VANIS & JONES, LLP Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 4 3620 American River Drive, Suite 218 Sacramento, California 95864 05/10/2022 Clerk of the Court 5 Telephone: 916.306.0434 BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE Facsimile: 949.226.7150 Deputy Clerk 6 Attorneys for Defendant 7 RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, 8 LLC 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 11 12 1367 NATOMA ST SF, LLC, a California Case No.: CGC-20-584041 13 limited liability corporation, RELIANCE BUILDING AND 14 Plaintiff, MAINTENANCE, LLC’S STIPULATED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO 15 v. CONTINUE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE; DECLARATION OF 16 RELIANCE BUILDING AND BRYAN T. BJORGE; STIPULATION TO MAINTENANCE, LLC, DOES 1-50, inclusive, CONTINUE TRIAL; [PROPOSED] 17 ORDER Defendants. 18 Complaint Filed: April 3, 2020 Trial Date: July 5, 2022 19 Ex Parte: May 11, 2022 – 11:00 a.m. 20 Judge: Hon. S. Feng 21 TO COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF 22 RECORD: 23 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 11, 2022, at 11 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter 24 may be heard in Department 206 of the above-entitled Court located at 400 McAllister St., San 25 Francisco, CA 94102 Defendant RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC (“Defendant”) 26 will and hereby does apply to the Court ex parte to continue the Trial presently set for July 5, 2022, 27 and all related discovery cut-off dates and trial-related deadlines. The parties have stipulated to 28 acontinuance. 1 DEFENDANT RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 1 This Ex Parte Application is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 128, California 2 Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, and San Francisco Superior Court Local Rule 6.0(B), and is based on the 3 grounds that good cause exists to continue the trial date and all related discovery cut-off dates and trial- 4 related deadlines due to the medical condition of counsel for Plaintiff, and so that the parties, both 5 Reliance and plaintiff, 1367 Natoma St SF LLC (“Plaintiff), have ample time to complete the following: 6 Complete written discovery, obtain subpoenaed documents; take party, person most knowledgeable, and 7 percipient witness depositions; conduct expert discovery, including expert depositions; and fully prepare 8 the case for trial. The parties have discussed mediation either just after the written discovery phase or 9 after key depositions – and a continuance is required to facilitate those efforts. There have been no prior 10 trial continuances. The parties have stipulated to this trial continuance. 11 This Ex Parte Application is based on this Notice, the attached Declaration of Bryan T. Bjorge, 12 the Stipulation to Continue the Trial, the [Proposed] Order, and any exhibits or other documents on file 13 with the Court, and upon such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the time of hearing. 14 All parties were notified on or before May 9, 2022, prior to scheduled hearing that this Ex 15 Parte Application would be presented on May 11, 2022, at 11:00 a.m., in Department 206 of the above- 16 entitled Court, as set forth more fully in the attached Declaration of Bryan T. Bjorge. 17 Dated: May 9, 2022 MOKRI VANIS & JONES, LLP 18 19 Todd A. Jones 20 Bryan T. Bjorge 21 Attorneys for Defendant RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DEFENDANT RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS 3 Plaintiff, 1367 NATOMA ST SF, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges construction defects, breach of 4 contract, and fraud claims related to demolition and remodel work performed by Defendant RELIANCE 5 BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC (“Defendant” or “Reliance”) on a multi-unit residential 6 property located at 1367 Natoma St., San Francisco, CA (the “Property”). (Bjorge Decl., ¶ 2). 7 Good cause exists for a continuance of the trial date, and related pre-trial deadlines and discovery 8 cut-offs, to accommodate ample time for all discovery and settlement efforts to be exhausted prior to 9 trial. (Bjorge Decl., ¶ 3). 10 II. THE COURT HAS POWER TO GRANT A CONTINUANCE OF THE TRIAL 11 DATE 12 The Court has the inherent power to grant a trial continuance. Code of Civil Procedure Section 13 128; Curtis vs. Underwood (1894) 101 Cal. 661, 669. “That the court had power to continue the 14 hearing . . . we do not doubt. The jurisdiction to hear and determine a cause or proceedings involves the 15 power to postpone for good cause the time of hearing, unless prohibited by positive law.” Id. at 669. 16 California Rules of Court Rule 3.1332 authorizes the continuance of a trial date via application or motion 17 upon an affirmative showing of good cause, as follows: 18 (c) Grounds for continuance 19 20 Although continuation of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative 21 showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: 22 (1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or 23 other excusable circumstances: 24 (2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; 25 (3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; 26 (4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interest of justice; 27 (5) The addition of a new party: 28 3 DEFENDANT RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 1 (A) the new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s involvement in the case; 2 (B) the other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s involvement in the case; 3 (6) A party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material 4 evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the 5 case is not ready for trial.” 6 Rule 3.1332(d) further provides in relevant part as follows: 7 8 “(d) Other factors to be considered In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts 9 and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include: 10 (1) The proximity of the trial date; (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial date 11 due to any party; (3) The length of the continuance requested; 12 (4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; 13 (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; 14 (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; 15 (7) The court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; 16 (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the 17 matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and 18 (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.” 19 Here, the factors listed in Rule 3.1332 weigh heavily in favor of a continuance of the trial date, 20 most specifically as follows: The parties have stipulated to continuing the trial - so the parties have agreed 21 that there is no prejudice to either party. (Bjorge Decl., ¶ 4) There have been no prior trial continuances. 22 (Bjorge Decl., ¶ 5). 23 Trial counsel for Plaintiff, James Quadra, is currently unable to attend trial in person due to a 24 medical condition and the fact that his doctor has not yet cleared him to attend in-person trials. (Bjorge 25 Decl., ¶9, Exh. C.) Mr. Quadra is scheduled to be re-evaluated at the end of June, as his doctor anticipates 26 he will be ready to return to in-person trials at that time, but until he is re-evaluated, there is uncertainty 27 as to whether he will be able to attend a trial in person on the first business day of July. 28 4 DEFENDANT RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 1 Additionally, Reliance was a suspended entity with the California Secretary of State from on or 2 about February 17, 2021 (and perhaps earlier but date of suspension unknown) until correction and 3 revival to good standing on or about August 26, 2021. (Bjorge Decl., ¶ 7). This period delayed discovery 4 for both parties. (Bjorge Decl., ¶ 7). Lastly, the parties intend to mediate this case, and would prefer to 5 do so after the completion of written discovery, and either before or directly after key depositions. If the 6 parties were to shift into trial preparation mode, and then the case would become more expensive quickly 7 and be rendered more difficult to settle prior to trial. (Bjorge Decl., ¶ 8). 8 Courts may be liberal in granting continuances when the facts justify such action. "It may be 9 conceded that the facts given, as an explanation of appellant's absence from the trial, if properly 10 presented to the trial court, and in the absence of any lack of diligence, were not only sufficient to 11 entitle him to a continuance, but were sufficient to make the failure to grant the motion an abuse of 12 discretion. It is unquestionably true, as claimed by appellant, that the disposition of the court is to show 13 great liberality in granting continuances in civil cases, when it is fairly apparent that to do otherwise 14 will have the effect of denying to the applicant the right to his day in court." Ross vs. Thirlwall (1929) 15 101 Cal.App. 411, 415. 16 III. CONCLUSION 17 Based on the foregoing, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant the present Ex Parte 18 Application to Continue the Trial Date (and related discovery cut-offs and trial related deadlines) 19 Defendant and Plaintiff have agreed that a continuance from the current July 5, 2022 trial date to a new 20 date on or about six months out to January 5, 2023, or in the alternative, to a date at least three months 21 from the present trial date to a new date on or after October 3, 2022, would allow Mr. Quadra the ability 22 to clear him in advance of trial to return to in-person trials, and to allow the parties adequate time to 23 conduct discovery in a timely fashion and exhaust settlement efforts prior to trial. 24 Dated: May 9, 2022 MOKRI VANIS & JONES, LLP 25 26 Todd A. Jones 27 Bryan T. Bjorge 28 Attorneys for Defendant RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC 5 DEFENDANT RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 1 DECLARATION OF BRYAN T. BJORGE 2 I, Bryan T. Bjorge, declare as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all of the Courts in the State of 4 California. I am a associate with the law firm of MOKRI VANIS & JONES, counsel of record for 5 Defendant RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC (“Reliance”) in this action. I make 6 this Declaration in support of Defendant Reliance Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date and 7 Discovery Cut-Off Date. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration and, if 8 called as a witness, could and would testify competently to such facts under oath. 9 2. This case arises out of plaintiff’s, 1367 NATOMA ST SF, LLC (“Plaintiff”) allegations 10 of construction defects, breach of contract, and fraud claims related to demolition and remodel work 11 performed by Defendant RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC (“Defendant” or 12 “Reliance”) on a multi-unit residential property located at 1367 Natoma St., San Francisco, CA (the 13 “Property”). 14 3. Good cause exists for a continuance of the Trial Date and discovery cut-off date, to 15 accommodate the ample time for all discovery, mediation, and for settlement efforts to be exhausted prior 16 to trial. 17 4. Plaintiff has stipulated to the trial continuance to a date six months from the present Trial 18 date to a date on or about January 5, 2023, or in the alternative, to a date at least three months from the 19 present Trial date to a new date on or after October 3, 2022. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and 20 correct copy of the parties Stipulation to Continue Trial. 21 5. The Trial Date in this matter has not previously been continued. 22 6. The following parties were notified on May 9, 2022, that this Ex Parte Application 23 would be presented on May 11, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. in Department 206 of the above-entitled Court 24 located at 400 McAllister St., San Francisco, CA 90016: Rebecca Coll, Esq. of Quadra & Coll, LLP, 25 counsel for Plaintiff at rcoll@quadracoll.com., and other employees of her law firm. Attached hereto 26 as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the e-mail to Plaintiff’s counsel providing Ex Parte Notice. 27 7. On information and belief, Reliance was a suspended entity with the California Secretary 28 of State from on or about February 17, 2021 (and perhaps earlier but date of suspension unknown) until 6 DEFENDANT RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 1 correction and revival to good standing on or about August 26, 2021. This period delayed discovery for 2 both parties. 3 8. The parties intend to mediate this case and would prefer to do so after the completion of 4 written discovery, and either before or directly after key depositions. If the parties were to shift into trial 5 preparation mode, and then the case would become more expensive quickly and be rendered more 6 difficult to settle prior to trial. 7 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a letter provided by counsel for 8 Plaintiff regarding James Quadra’s medical condition. 9 I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is 10 true and correct. 11 Executed this May 9, 2022, at Sacramento, California. 12 13 ______________________________ Bryan T. Bjorge, Declarant 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 DEFENDANT RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL EXHIBIT A 1 Todd A. Jones (Bar No. 198024) tjones@mvjllp.com 2 Bryan T. Bjorge (Bar No. 229244) bbjorge@mvjllp.com 3 MOKRI VANIS & JONES, LLP 4 3620 American River Drive, Suite 218 Sacramento, California 95864 5 Telephone: 916.306.0434 Facsimile: 949.226.7150 6 Attorneys for Defendant 7 RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, 8 LLC 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 11 12 1367 NATOMA ST SF, LLC, a California Case No.: CGC-20-584041 13 limited liability corporation, STIPULATION IN SUPPORT OF 14 Plaintiff, RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC’S EX PARTE 15 v. APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE 16 RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC, DOES 1-50, inclusive, 17 Complaint Filed: April 3, 2020 Defendants. Trial Date: July 5, 2022 18 19 TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 20 AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION 21 The following Stipulation for Continuance of the Trial is made by and between the parties to this 22 action, defendant RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC (“Defendant”) and plaintiff, 23 1367 NATOMA ST SF, LLC (“Plaintiff”), by and through their respective attorneys of record herein, with 24 reference to the following: 25 WHEREAS, discovery was delayed due in part to the corporate suspension of Defendant, that 26 has since been cured. 27 WHEREAS, the parties are currently engaged in the written discovery phase. 28 WHEREAS, the parties intend to participate in private mediation either after the written discovery 1 STIPULATION RE RELIANCE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE 1 phase or after the key depositions have been taken. The mediation will have a greater chance of success 2 if the parties have not already been forced to incur the fees and costs associated with completing all 3 depositions, conducting expert discovery, and commencing trial preparation; 4 WHEREAS, the parties therefore all agree that a continuance of the current July 5, 2023, is 5 appropriate, and needed to efficiently proceed with litigating this matter without incurring additional 6 expenses based on the impending trial date. 7 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, through their 8 respective counsel, as follows: 9 1. That the Trial currently set for July 5, 2022, be vacated and reset for six months from the 10 present Trial date to a date on or about January 5, 2023, or in the alternative, to a date at least three months 11 from the present Trial date to a new date on or after October 3, 2022; 12 2. That all related dates including the discovery cut-off date, and any pre-trial deadlines be 13 vacated and reset pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, California Rules of Court, and any Local Rules 14 be based upon the new Trial date; 15 3. This stipulation may be executed in counterparts, with the same force and effect as if 16 executed in one complete document. An electronic and/or facsimile copy of this stipulation and the 17 signatures hereto shall carry the same force and effect as the original. 18 Party signatures on following page: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 STIPULATION RE RELIANCE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE 1 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 2 3 Dated: May _____, 9 2022 MOKRI VANIS & JONES, LLP 4 5 Todd A. Jones 6 Bryan T. Bjorge 7 Attorneys for Defendant RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC 8 9 10 11 Dated: May 7, 2022 QUADRA & COLL, LLP 12 13 14 James A. Quadra Rebecca Coll 15 Robert D. Sanford Attorneys for Plaintiff 1367 NATOMA ST SF, 16 LLC 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 STIPULATION RE RELIANCE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE EXHIBIT B From: Bryan Bjorge To: Rebecca Coll Cc: James Quadra; Robert Sanford; Vanessa Buffington; Yolanda Bullock Subject: 1367 Natoma St SF, LLC v. Reliance Building re Ex Parte Application to Continue, Stipulation Date: Monday, May 9, 2022 11:55:54 AM Attachments: 1367 Ex Parte App to Cont. Trial-signed.pdf Rebecca, (as discussed) Please see attached Ex Parte Application to Continue the Trial, the parties’ executed Stipulation thereto, and supporting pleadings and exhibits. This e-mail shall constitute timely notice of the Ex Parte in conformity with the CCP and local rules. The remote hearing shall be heard Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 11 a.m. (via courtcall or Zoom, we will advise when the appearance method is confirmed with the Court. Yours truly, Bryan Bryan T. Bjorge Special Counsel MOKRI VANIS & JONES, LLP 3620 American River Dr., Suite 218 Sacramento, CA 95864 Main 916.306.0434 | Fax 949.226.7150 email: bbjorge@mvjllp.com www.mvjllp.com EXHIBIT C Karim Touijer, MD Associate Attending Urologist Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancer April 27th, 2022 Patient Name: Quadra, James Date of Birth: 9/17/1960 To whom it may concern: Mr. James Quadra is a patient of mine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center who underwent a surgical procedure on February 10th,2022. Due to the nature of this procedure and his post-operative restrictions, Mr. Quadra cannot attend in-person trials until he is cleared to do so by me. I will re-evaluate Mr. Quadra’s recovery will be re-evaluated at the end of June as I anticipate that is when he will be able to return to in-person trials. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at 646-422- 4486. If you need to send or request additional documents, my fax number is 212-988-0768. Sincerely, Karim Touijer, MD Department of Surgery/Urology Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center 1275 York Avenue, New York, New York 10065 Telephone 646.422.4432•Fax 212.988.0760 NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 1367 Natoma St SF, LLC v. Reliance Building and Maintenance, LLC San Francisco County Superior Court Action No. CGC-20-584041 3 I, the undersigned, declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action 4 or proceeding. My business address is 3620 American River Drive, Suite 218, Sacramento, California 95864. On the date indicated below, I caused the following document(s) to be served: 5 RELIANCE BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE, LLC’S STIPULATED EX PARTE 6 APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE; DECLARATION OF BRYAN T. BJORGE; STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; 7 [PROPOSED] ORDER 8 9 by placing a true copy of the document(s) listed above, enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed as set forth below, for collection and mailing on the date and at the business address 10 shown above following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’ practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the 11 United States Postal Service. On the same day that a sealed envelope is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal 12 Service with postage fully prepaid. 13 by placing a true copy of the document(s) listed above, in a box or other facility regularly maintained by Federal Express (FedEx), an express service carrier, or delivered to a courier 14 or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, in an envelope designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed 15 as set forth below. 16 I electronically served the above referenced document(s) through File & Serve Xpress. E- service in this action was completed on all parties listed on the service list with File & Serve 17 Xpress. This service complies with the court’s order in this case. 18 BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, and in compliance with C.C.P. §§ 1010.6(2)(A)(ii) and 19 1010.6(e)(1), I caused the documents to be electronically sent to the persons on the attached 20 service list. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 21 22 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 23 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 9, 2022, at Sacramento, California. 24 25 Yplanda Bullock 26 Yolanda Bullock 27 28 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 SERVICE LIST 2 James A. Quadra Attorneys for Plaintiff 3 Rebecca Coll 1367 NATOMA ST SF, LLC Robert D. Sanford 4 QUADRA & COLL, LLP T: 415.426.3502 649 Mission Street, Fifth Floor F: 415.625.9936 5 San Francisco, CA 94105 E: jquadra@quadracoll.com; rcoll@quadracoll.com; 6 admin@quadracoll.com 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 PROOF OF SERVICE