Preview
1JOSHUA S. FALAKASSA (SBN: 295045)
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
2 1901 Avenue ofthe Stars Suite # 450
3 Los Angeles, Califomia 90067
Tel.: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888) 505-0868
4 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com
5 ARASH S. KHOSROWSHAHI (SBN: 293246)
6 L I B E R T Y MAN LAW, P.C.
1010 F Street, Ste. 300
.7 Sacramento, Califomia 95814
Tel.: (916) 573-0469; Fax: (866) 700-0787
8 Email: ash@libertymanlaw.com
9
Attomeys for Plaintifif,
10 SAJIDA ZAMAN
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
12 BY FAX
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
13
SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO.: 34-2019-00252121
14
15 Plainfiff, PLAINTIFF SAJIDA ZAMAN'S
vs. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN
16 SUPPORT OF EX PARTE
LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES 1 APPLICATION FOR ORDER (1)
17 through 20, inclusive. SPECIALLY SETTING HEARINGS ON
DISCOVERY MOTIONS; OR
18 ALTERNATIVELY (2) SEEKING
Defendants.
19 HEARINGS ON DISCOVERY
MOTIONS ON SHORTENED TIME.
20
Date: August 11, 2022
21 Time: 9:15pm
Dept.: 53
22
Trial Date: September 12, 2022
23
Pursuant to Evidence Code § 451(a), Plainfifif Sajida Zaman ("Plaintiff') requests that the
24
Court take judicial notice of the following:
25
(1) This Court's Order Determining Disposifion of Ex Parte Application dated August 5,
26
2022, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
27
28
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
1 of 2
1 The attached Order is decisional law of this state, of which judicial notice shall be taken
2 (Evid. Code § 451(a).)
3 Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of these items.
4 Dated this 10* of August, 2022
.5 Respectfully Subrriitted,
LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C.
6 FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
7.
8.
9
10
Arash Khosrowshahi
11 Joshua Falakassa
Attomeys for Plaintifif Sajida Zaman
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
2 of 2
EXHIBIT A
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
ORDER DETERMINING DISPOSITION OF EX PARTE APPLICATION
Case Name: I P / ~ Case Number:
Uxmain us Li qui-Dm
Type of Application: By.
ior/^ora^e^Application
3'/'M?-miJ/^
Date:
ana AUG - 5 2022
Names of Appearing Party: rese
Representing:
The Court, having considered the above entitled ex parte application iS^ithout a hearing • after hearing
with appearance as noted above, rules as follows:
• The application is granted.
Itf The application is denied on the merits of the papers presented to the Courtx4*t<2E> <^?"*-'r*» (^^^^
• The application is denied without prejudice to its resubmission for the foiiowing reason(s):
• The moving party may not proceed except by noticed motion.
• Other
• Counsel for the is ordered to prepare formal order
AUG - 5 2022
DATE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR
JUDGE RICHARD K. SUEYOSHI
CASE NUMBER: 34-2019-00252121 DEPARTMENT: 53
CASE T I T L E : Zaman v. Liqui Box Corporation
PROCEEDINGS: Ex Parte Application for Order
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OFSACRAMENTO
DATE/TIME : August 5, 2022 DEPT. NO : 53
JUDGE : Richard K. Sueyoshi CLERK : P. Lopez
REPORTER : None BAILIFF : None
SAJIDA ZAMAN,
Case No.: 34-2019-00252121
Plaintiffs,
V.
LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION,
and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER (1) SPECIALLY
SETTING HEARINGS ON DISCOVERY MOTIONS; (2)
CONTINUING MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION HEARING; AND (3)
FOR L E A V E TO F I L E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
The Court mles on this matter without hearing. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 166(a)(1); Sac. Sup. Ct. Local Rule
2.235(A); see also Wilburn v. Oakland Hospital {\9S9) 213 Cal.App.3d 1107, 1111. The Court has reviewed
the ex parte applicafion and its supporting papers. No opposition was filed.
Plainfiff brings an ex parte application seeking the following: (1) to specially set the hearing date of Plaintiff s
motions to compel (which appear to be five separate motions) currently set for hearing on October 18, 2022, to a
date between August 29 and September 1, 2022; (2) to continue for sixty days the hearing on Defendant's
motion for summary judgment/adjudication (MSJ) currently set for hearing on August 10, 2022; and (3) to
allow Plainfiff to file a supplemental opposition to Defendant's MSJ. Altematively, should the Court decline to
continue the MSJ hearing. Plaintiff still requests to advance the discovery mofions to September 1, 2022.
Plainfiff s application is DENIED and GRANTED in parts as set forth herein.
As to Plaintiffs request to continue for sixty days the hearing on Defendant's MSJ, the application is DENIED.
The trial of this matter is set for September 12, 2022. No application or motion to continue the September 12,
2022 trial date has been filed and granted by the Presiding Judge. Thus, Plaintiffs request to continue the
hearing of Defendant's MSJ to a date after trial is nonsensical and would also result in violation of CCP
437c(a)(3) which provides that the "motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless
1
CASE NUMBER: 34-2019-00252121 DEPARTMENT: 53
CASE T I T L E : Zaman v. Liqui Box Corporation
PROCEEDINGS: Ex Parte Application for Order
the court for good cause orders otherwise." There can be no good cause, and the Court finds none here, to
continue the MSJ hearing to any date after trial is scheduled. Plaintiff does not altematively seek a continuance
that is less than sixty days. However, even if it had, on the present record, the Court would not find good cause
to continue the MSJ hearing to a date fewer than thirty days before trial. While Plaintiff characterizes its time to
oppose the MSJ as "minimal," the Court notes that Plainfiff has.had the full statutory time under CCP 437c to
oppose. As to the discovery that is the subject to Plaintiffs various motions to compel, the Courtfindsthat
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated sufficient diligence. For instance, Plainfiff has not shown why it was
prohibited from propounding such discovery requests earlier. While Plaintiff characterizes the discovery as that
"regarding essential issues to be adjudicated in the MSJ," it has not demonstrated why it could only propound
such discovery upon receipt of Defendant's MSJ, which was served on May 27, 2022. Indeed, the fact that most
of the discovery requests at issue were served before May 27, 2022, indicates that there was no necessity to wait
until receipt of the MSJ to prepare and propound them.
As to Plainfiff s request to file a supplemental opposition to Defendant's MSJ, the applicafion is DENIED.
Presumably, Plaintiffs request is premised on the assumption that its request to continue the MSJ hearing
(presently set for hearing three court days from now) would be granted. Given that the Court has denied the
rcqucst for continuance, it similarly denies Plaintiffs request to file a supplemental opposition.
Finally, as to Plaintiffs request to advance the hearing dates on its five motions to compel (already filed/served
and currenfiy set for hearing on October 18, 2022) to September 1, 2022, the application is DENIED and
GRANTED in parts. As to Plaintiffs request for September 1, 2022, the application is DENIED. As provided
in CCP 2024.020(a), "motions conceming discovery [shall be] heard on or before the 15th day, before the date
inifially set for trial." Plaintiffs requested date of September 1, 2022 is not 15 days prior to the September 12,
2022 trial date. In its discretion, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs application in part and advances the hearing
date on Plaintiffs five motions currently set for hearing on October 18, 2022 to August 25,2022. at 1:30 p.m.,
in Department 53. Anv opposition papers shall be due for service and filing by August 12. 2022. Any reply
papers shall be due for service and filing by August 18. 2022. All filings shall be made directly in Department
53. Service shall be electronic or by hand delivery.
Certificate of Service by Mailing attached.
CASE NUMBER: 34-2019-00252121 DEPARTMENT: 53
CASE TITLE: Zaman v. Liqui Box Corporation
PROCEEDINGS: Ex Parte Application for Order
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAILING
I, the Clerk of the Superior Court of Califomia, County of Sacramento, certify that I am not a party to
this, cause, and on the date shown below I served the foregoing MINUTE ORDER by sending tme copies
thereof, addressed respectively to the persons and email addresses shov^ below:
Arash S. Khosrowshahi James T. Jones
Liberty Man Law, P.C. Jackson Lewis, P.C.
1010 F Street, Suite 300 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600
Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814
Email: ashfgilibertvmanlaw.com Email: James.Jones@jacksonlewis.com
I, the undersigned Deputy Clerk, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is tme and correct.
Dated: August 5,2022
By: P. Lopez, Dep
Superior Court of California,
County of Sacramento
Preview
1JOSHUA S. FALAKASSA (SBN: 295045) FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 2 1901 Avenue ofthe Stars Suite # 450 3 Los Angeles, Califomia 90067 Tel.: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888) 505-0868 4 Email: josh@falakassalaw.com 5 ARASH S. KHOSROWSHAHI (SBN: 293246) 6 L I B E R T Y MAN LAW, P.C. 1010 F Street, Ste. 300 .7 Sacramento, Califomia 95814 Tel.: (916) 573-0469; Fax: (866) 700-0787 8 Email: ash@libertymanlaw.com 9 Attomeys for Plaintifif, 10 SAJIDA ZAMAN 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 12 BY FAX COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 13 SAJIDA ZAMAN, CASE NO.: 34-2019-00252121 14 15 Plainfiff, PLAINTIFF SAJIDA ZAMAN'S vs. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN 16 SUPPORT OF EX PARTE LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES 1 APPLICATION FOR ORDER (1) 17 through 20, inclusive. SPECIALLY SETTING HEARINGS ON DISCOVERY MOTIONS; OR 18 ALTERNATIVELY (2) SEEKING Defendants. 19 HEARINGS ON DISCOVERY MOTIONS ON SHORTENED TIME. 20 Date: August 11, 2022 21 Time: 9:15pm Dept.: 53 22 Trial Date: September 12, 2022 23 Pursuant to Evidence Code § 451(a), Plainfifif Sajida Zaman ("Plaintiff') requests that the 24 Court take judicial notice of the following: 25 (1) This Court's Order Determining Disposifion of Ex Parte Application dated August 5, 26 2022, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 27 28 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 1 of 2 1 The attached Order is decisional law of this state, of which judicial notice shall be taken 2 (Evid. Code § 451(a).) 3 Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of these items. 4 Dated this 10* of August, 2022 .5 Respectfully Subrriitted, LIBERTY MAN LAW, P.C. 6 FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 7. 8. 9 10 Arash Khosrowshahi 11 Joshua Falakassa Attomeys for Plaintifif Sajida Zaman 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ORDER DETERMINING DISPOSITION OF EX PARTE APPLICATION Case Name: I P / ~ Case Number: Uxmain us Li qui-Dm Type of Application: By. ior/^ora^e^Application 3'/'M?-miJ/^ Date: ana AUG - 5 2022 Names of Appearing Party: rese Representing: The Court, having considered the above entitled ex parte application iS^ithout a hearing • after hearing with appearance as noted above, rules as follows: • The application is granted. Itf The application is denied on the merits of the papers presented to the Courtx4*t<2E> <^?"*-'r*» (^^^^ • The application is denied without prejudice to its resubmission for the foiiowing reason(s): • The moving party may not proceed except by noticed motion. • Other • Counsel for the is ordered to prepare formal order AUG - 5 2022 DATE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR JUDGE RICHARD K. SUEYOSHI CASE NUMBER: 34-2019-00252121 DEPARTMENT: 53 CASE T I T L E : Zaman v. Liqui Box Corporation PROCEEDINGS: Ex Parte Application for Order SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OFSACRAMENTO DATE/TIME : August 5, 2022 DEPT. NO : 53 JUDGE : Richard K. Sueyoshi CLERK : P. Lopez REPORTER : None BAILIFF : None SAJIDA ZAMAN, Case No.: 34-2019-00252121 Plaintiffs, V. LIQUI-BOX CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER (1) SPECIALLY SETTING HEARINGS ON DISCOVERY MOTIONS; (2) CONTINUING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION HEARING; AND (3) FOR L E A V E TO F I L E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION The Court mles on this matter without hearing. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 166(a)(1); Sac. Sup. Ct. Local Rule 2.235(A); see also Wilburn v. Oakland Hospital {\9S9) 213 Cal.App.3d 1107, 1111. The Court has reviewed the ex parte applicafion and its supporting papers. No opposition was filed. Plainfiff brings an ex parte application seeking the following: (1) to specially set the hearing date of Plaintiff s motions to compel (which appear to be five separate motions) currently set for hearing on October 18, 2022, to a date between August 29 and September 1, 2022; (2) to continue for sixty days the hearing on Defendant's motion for summary judgment/adjudication (MSJ) currently set for hearing on August 10, 2022; and (3) to allow Plainfiff to file a supplemental opposition to Defendant's MSJ. Altematively, should the Court decline to continue the MSJ hearing. Plaintiff still requests to advance the discovery mofions to September 1, 2022. Plainfiff s application is DENIED and GRANTED in parts as set forth herein. As to Plaintiffs request to continue for sixty days the hearing on Defendant's MSJ, the application is DENIED. The trial of this matter is set for September 12, 2022. No application or motion to continue the September 12, 2022 trial date has been filed and granted by the Presiding Judge. Thus, Plaintiffs request to continue the hearing of Defendant's MSJ to a date after trial is nonsensical and would also result in violation of CCP 437c(a)(3) which provides that the "motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless 1 CASE NUMBER: 34-2019-00252121 DEPARTMENT: 53 CASE T I T L E : Zaman v. Liqui Box Corporation PROCEEDINGS: Ex Parte Application for Order the court for good cause orders otherwise." There can be no good cause, and the Court finds none here, to continue the MSJ hearing to any date after trial is scheduled. Plaintiff does not altematively seek a continuance that is less than sixty days. However, even if it had, on the present record, the Court would not find good cause to continue the MSJ hearing to a date fewer than thirty days before trial. While Plaintiff characterizes its time to oppose the MSJ as "minimal," the Court notes that Plainfiff has.had the full statutory time under CCP 437c to oppose. As to the discovery that is the subject to Plaintiffs various motions to compel, the Courtfindsthat Plaintiffs have not demonstrated sufficient diligence. For instance, Plainfiff has not shown why it was prohibited from propounding such discovery requests earlier. While Plaintiff characterizes the discovery as that "regarding essential issues to be adjudicated in the MSJ," it has not demonstrated why it could only propound such discovery upon receipt of Defendant's MSJ, which was served on May 27, 2022. Indeed, the fact that most of the discovery requests at issue were served before May 27, 2022, indicates that there was no necessity to wait until receipt of the MSJ to prepare and propound them. As to Plainfiff s request to file a supplemental opposition to Defendant's MSJ, the applicafion is DENIED. Presumably, Plaintiffs request is premised on the assumption that its request to continue the MSJ hearing (presently set for hearing three court days from now) would be granted. Given that the Court has denied the rcqucst for continuance, it similarly denies Plaintiffs request to file a supplemental opposition. Finally, as to Plaintiffs request to advance the hearing dates on its five motions to compel (already filed/served and currenfiy set for hearing on October 18, 2022) to September 1, 2022, the application is DENIED and GRANTED in parts. As to Plaintiffs request for September 1, 2022, the application is DENIED. As provided in CCP 2024.020(a), "motions conceming discovery [shall be] heard on or before the 15th day, before the date inifially set for trial." Plaintiffs requested date of September 1, 2022 is not 15 days prior to the September 12, 2022 trial date. In its discretion, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs application in part and advances the hearing date on Plaintiffs five motions currently set for hearing on October 18, 2022 to August 25,2022. at 1:30 p.m., in Department 53. Anv opposition papers shall be due for service and filing by August 12. 2022. Any reply papers shall be due for service and filing by August 18. 2022. All filings shall be made directly in Department 53. Service shall be electronic or by hand delivery. Certificate of Service by Mailing attached. CASE NUMBER: 34-2019-00252121 DEPARTMENT: 53 CASE TITLE: Zaman v. Liqui Box Corporation PROCEEDINGS: Ex Parte Application for Order CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAILING I, the Clerk of the Superior Court of Califomia, County of Sacramento, certify that I am not a party to this, cause, and on the date shown below I served the foregoing MINUTE ORDER by sending tme copies thereof, addressed respectively to the persons and email addresses shov^ below: Arash S. Khosrowshahi James T. Jones Liberty Man Law, P.C. Jackson Lewis, P.C. 1010 F Street, Suite 300 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 Email: ashfgilibertvmanlaw.com Email: James.Jones@jacksonlewis.com I, the undersigned Deputy Clerk, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is tme and correct. Dated: August 5,2022 By: P. Lopez, Dep Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento