On October 06, 2020 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Mendoza Mogollon Lilia,
and
Barajas Luis M,
Fausto Duran,
Fausto Susana,
Maya Eva,
Sadeghi Janet,
Sadeghi Reza,
for Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) (General Jurisdiction)
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
ae
FILED
Superior Court of California
‘ounty of Los Angeles
SEP 01 2021
MOGOLLON V. SADEGHI, et al.
20STCV38322 Sheri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court
September 1, 2021 By: D. Canada, Deputy
ORDER DENYING FURTHER TRIAL CONTINUANCE
Plaintiff filed this case on October 6, 2020. Trial was originally set for September 7,
2021.
The record shows that defendants impeded discovery which resulted in sanctions orders
dated May 7, 2021. Defendants’ improper conduct continued and plaintiff brought a motion for
terminating sanctions. At a hearing on July 2, 2021, the Court issued a tentative ruling to grant
the motion but gave the parties an opportunity to discuss settlement.
The parties later asked for additional time to discuss settlement and the request was
granted. On July 19, 2021, plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement. On August 27, 2021 the case
was called for a Final Status Conference. No trial documents had been timely filed. Defendants’
attorney failed to appear. Plaintiff's counsel advised that defendants had yet to sign the
settlement agreement. The Court once again agreed to give the parties some additional time and
continued the trial to September 20, 2021. The Court also extended the time within which to file
trial documents.
Now the parties are seeking another trial continuance. It appears that defendants have
still not signed the settlement agreement. No excuse is offered. Thus, there is in fact no
settlement, merely an “agreement to agree” which is unenforceable.
On this record, no further continuance is warranted. Trial dates are firm and the parties
have apparently been unable to get a settlement agreement signed for six weeks. Plaintiff may
proceed to trial or dismiss the case. If requested under CCP 664.6, the Court is willing to retain
92 jurisdiction to enforce the terms of any fully executed settlement agreement.
KO
so
ood Accordingly, good cause having been shown,
bo
aD
he IT IS ORDERED that the joint stipulation to continue trial date is Denied.
ie
Notice by plaintiff.
Document Filed Date
September 01, 2021
Case Filing Date
October 06, 2020
Category
Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Court-Ordered Dismissal - Other (Other) 09/14/2021
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
ae FILED Superior Court of California ‘ounty of Los Angeles SEP 01 2021 MOGOLLON V. SADEGHI, et al. 20STCV38322 Sheri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court September 1, 2021 By: D. Canada, Deputy ORDER DENYING FURTHER TRIAL CONTINUANCE Plaintiff filed this case on October 6, 2020. Trial was originally set for September 7, 2021. The record shows that defendants impeded discovery which resulted in sanctions orders dated May 7, 2021. Defendants’ improper conduct continued and plaintiff brought a motion for terminating sanctions. At a hearing on July 2, 2021, the Court issued a tentative ruling to grant the motion but gave the parties an opportunity to discuss settlement. The parties later asked for additional time to discuss settlement and the request was granted. On July 19, 2021, plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement. On August 27, 2021 the case was called for a Final Status Conference. No trial documents had been timely filed. Defendants’ attorney failed to appear. Plaintiff's counsel advised that defendants had yet to sign the settlement agreement. The Court once again agreed to give the parties some additional time and continued the trial to September 20, 2021. The Court also extended the time within which to file trial documents. Now the parties are seeking another trial continuance. It appears that defendants have still not signed the settlement agreement. No excuse is offered. Thus, there is in fact no settlement, merely an “agreement to agree” which is unenforceable. On this record, no further continuance is warranted. Trial dates are firm and the parties have apparently been unable to get a settlement agreement signed for six weeks. Plaintiff may proceed to trial or dismiss the case. If requested under CCP 664.6, the Court is willing to retain 92 jurisdiction to enforce the terms of any fully executed settlement agreement. KO so ood Accordingly, good cause having been shown, bo aD he IT IS ORDERED that the joint stipulation to continue trial date is Denied. ie Notice by plaintiff.