Preview
1 Christopher J. Fry, Esq. (SBN: 298874)
Email: cfry@frylawcorp.com
2 Kristine Du, Esq. (SBN: 338095)
Email: kdu@frylawcorp.com
3 FRY LAW CORPORATION
980 9th Street, 16th Floor
4 Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: (916) 291-0700
5 Facsimile: (916) 848-0256
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
SHERRY LARSEN and dba CALIFORNIA STATE ENTERPRISES
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
10
11
12 SHERRY LARSEN, individually and dba CASE NO.: S-CV-0045659
CALIFORNIA STATE ENTERPRISES,
13 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
Plaintiff, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX
14 PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE
vs. TRIAL AND TRIAL RELATED DATES
15 OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN
PLACER VALLEY SPORTS COMPLEX, ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR
16 INC. dba @the Grounds, a California NOTICE OF A MOTION TO CONTINUE
Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, TRIAL AND RELATED DATES
17
Defendants. Date: November 17, 2022
18
Time: 8:00 a.m.
19
Dept.: 30
20
Trial: November 14, 2022
21
Action Filed: October 2, 2020
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1 Plaintiff, by and through counsel, hereby respectfully submits this Memorandum of
2 Points and Authorities in support of the ex parte application to continue trial and related dates,
3 or in the alternative, an order shortening time as set forth below:
4 This is a complicated contract case. It has not been pending long. The first deposition
5 in the case was taken only recently. Defendant just recently fully responded to discovery and
6 that discovery is deficient. Plaintiff was in pro per for a lengthy amount of time. Plaintiff only
7 recently retained current counsel.
8 The case was filed approximately two (2) years ago. Plaintiff alleges Defendant
9 cancelled the Facility License Agreement and Plaintiff’s rights to hold events at the Placer
10 County Fairgrounds between 2020 and 2025 in breach of the agreement. Plaintiff seeks
11 damages of over $250,000.00, interest, and attorney fees, trial should not be rushed.
12 No parties will suffer prejudice as Plaintiff no longer able to hold events at the
13 Fairgrounds, and time will only serve to clarify the claims and potentially prompt settlement
14 discussions.
15 Plaintiff retained present counsel in November of 2022. At that point, trial was set for
16 November 14, 2022, just a few days later. It is currently trailing waiting for a courtroom
17 Plaintiff’s counsels need time to review Plaintiff’s file and be up to date with the facts of the
18 case, it was apparent the case had work that needed to be done. Upon review of the prior
19 counsel’s file, it appears that at least a few depositions will be necessary to streamline trial
20 for the sake of the jury and the Court. Also, given the fact that trial is just days away, Plaintiff
21 and her new counsel will be hard pressed in orchestrating witnesses and evidence on such
22 short notice. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the application be
23 granted and her motion currently set for January 3, 2022, be heard now, or shortly after this
24 hearing.
25 LEGAL STANDARD REGARDING CONTINUANCES
26 Generally, “to ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for
27 trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.”
28 (CRC 3.1332(a); see also CRC 3.1332(c)—“continuances of trial are disfavored.”)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2
1 However, an affirmative showing of “good cause” according to Judicial Council standards
2 is required on a motion for continuance before trial. (CRC 3.1332(c).)
3 Despite the “disfavored” nature of trial continuances, each case must be
4 considered on its own merits. (CRC 3.1332(c).) The following circumstances may indicate
5 the presence of good cause warranting a continuance:
6 • unavailability of essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness or
7 other excusable circumstances; (CRC 3.1332(c)(1))
8 • unavailability of a party because of death, illness or other excusable
9 circumstances; (CRC 3.1332(c)(2))
10 • unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness or other excusable
11 circumstances; (CRC 3.1332(c)(3))
12 • substitution of trial counsel where there is an “affirmative showing that the
13 substitution is required in the interests of justice”; (CRC 3.1332(c)(4))
14 • addition of a new party if the new party has not had a reasonable opportunity
15 to conduct discovery or the other parties have not had an adequate opportunity
16 to prepare for trial in regard to the new party; (CRC 3.1332(c)(5)(A),(B))
17 • a party’s inability to obtain essential testimony, documents or other material
18 evidence despite diligent efforts; or (CRC 3.1332(c)(6))
19 • a significant unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which
20 the case is not ready for trial. (CRC 3.1332(c)(7))
21 In ruling on a motion for trial continuance, the court will normally consider all
22 relevant matters, including:
23
• proximity of the trial date;
24
• any previous continuances, extensions of time or delays of trial;
25
• length of the requested continuance;
26
• availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the
27
continuance request;
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
3
1 • prejudice the parties or witnesses may suffer if there is a continuance;
2 • if the case is entitled to a preference, the reasons for that status and whether
3 the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;
4 • court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending
5 trials;
6 • whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;
7 • whether all parties have stipulated to the continuance;
8 • whether the “interests of justice” are best served by a continuance, trial of the
9 matter or imposing conditions on the continuance; and
10 • “(a)ny other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion
11 or application.” (CRC 3.1332(d))
12 Whether to grant a continuance generally rests within the trial court’s broad
13 discretion. (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603; Oliveros v.
14 County of Los Angeles (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1395)
15 The court’s ruling on a continuance motion may be based on a “reasoned
16 judgment” and complies with the “legal principles and policies appropriate to the particular
17 matter at issue.” (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams, supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at 1603.)
18 However, refusal of a continuance which has the practical effect of denying the
19 applicant a fair hearing is not an appropriate use of discretion. (Oliveros v. County of Los
20 Angeles, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at 1395)
21 Based on the following, Plaintiff can show good cause to continue the trial and the
22 motion should be granted.
23 LEGAL STANDARD REGARDING SHORTENED TIME
24 The Court has discretion to grant an application for an order shortening upon a
25 showing “good cause” for the order. (See CRC 3.1202(c); Eliceche v. Federal Land Bank
26 Ass’n (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1369.)
27 Good cause exists for shortening the time to hear Plaintiff’s motion as the trial date
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
4
1 is trailing and may be set for less than one week from now. There is simply no time to
2 wait for the fully noticed motion as trial may come and go during the notice period.
3 ARGUMENT
4 A. Plaintiff’s Recent And Abrupt Need To Retain New Counsel Warrants A
5 Continuance.
6 A continuance motion should be granted when substitution of trial counsel has
7 occurred and there is an “affirmative showing that the substitution was required in the
8 interests of justice.” (CRC 3.1332(c)(4))
9 As set forth above, Plaintiff retained her current counsel only days before trial.
10 Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s new counsel was only given a few days before trial to review
11 client’s file and to grasp all the facts and issues.
12 Additionally, upon review of prior counsel’s file, it is clear that discovery to
13 safeguard an effective trial will be necessary to ensure Plaintiff’s day in court. (Fry Dec.)
14 It is also clear that Plaintiff had no control or involvement in where the case lies.
15 As California’s High Court has instructed, no litigant should lose their day in court
16 due solely to their counsel. (See Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (Sup. Ct.
17 2002), 28 Cal.4th 249, 257.)
18 Continuances are also often granted when a significant unanticipated change in
19 the status of the case makes the case is not ready for trial. (CRC 3.1332(c)(7))
20 Plaintiff certainly did not anticipate the fact that only minimal discovery had been
21 done. She did not expect to be forced to retain new counsel with just days before trial.
22 These changes are obviously unanticipated and grounds to continue the trial.
23 If the trial is not continued, Plaintiff will be required to present the case to the jury
24 with virtually no discovery and no witnesses. The result is even worse if the Court grants
25 the pending motions in limine based wholly on procedural issues that occurred while
26 Plaintiff was representing herself. This will result in a severely ineffective trial in terms of
27 time and merit. Justice and efficiency will not be served if trial moves forward with
28 discovery in the state it is.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
5
1 B. New Counsel and Plaintiff’s Inability To Conduct Discovery And Adequately
2 Prepare For Trial Warrants A Continuance.
3 A continuance motion should be granted when a party’s inability to obtain essential
4 testimony, documents or other material evidence despite diligent efforts is demonstrated.
5 (CRC 3.1332(c)(6).)
6 As set forth above, Plaintiff (and new counsel), at no fault of her own, has yet to
7 obtain even minimal discovery. Though Plaintiff has the basic facts to set forth her claims,
8 discovery is integral to this case as there are allegations of serious breaches of contract.
9 Plaintiff will likely discover critical details that will support (or refute) the claims if she is
10 given the opportunity to do so. At a minimum, she will be able to address the potentially
11 dispositive motions in limine filed by Defendant. A majority of the evidence in this case is
12 in the possession of Defendant and it has refused to produce it.
13 Lack of a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery is at least a factor when
14 determining whether to continue trial. (CRC 3.1332(c)(5)(A),(B))
15 As such, Plaintiff and her new counsel should be required to try the case with only
16 the very limited discovery done by prior counsel.
17 C. This Motion is Timely.
18 A continuance motion must be made “as soon as reasonably practical once the
19 necessity for the continuance is discovered.” (CRC 3.1332(b).) As set forth herein,
20 Plaintiff only recently was able to retain counsel and was unable to prepare the case for
21 trial. She only retained new counsel in the last two weeks.
22 Plaintiff and her counsel immediately began working on the continuance motion.
23 As such, no delay exists.
24 D. Ex Parte Notice Requirements Were Satisfied And Required Showings Are
25 Met.
26 California Rules of Court, Rules 3.1200 – 3.1207 state, in pertinent part:
27 (a) Time of notice: A party seeking an ex parte order must notify all parties no later
than 10:00 a.m. the court day before the ex parte appearance, absent a
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
6
1 showing of exceptional circumstances that justify a shorter time for notice.
2 Counsel for Plaintiff has submitted a declaration filed concurrently herewith,
3 demonstrating compliance with this rule set governing applications for ex parte relief. The
4 supporting Declaration of attorney Christopher J. Fry, Esq. states that the Defendants, or
5 their attorneys, were informed of the time, date and location of the ex parte hearing to be
6 held on November 17, 2022 by 8:00 a.m.
7 CONCLUSION
8 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant the
9 application to continue trial and related dates or in the alternative, issue an order
10 shortening time to hear the formal motion concurrently with this application. No parties
11 will suffer prejudice.
12
13 DATED: November 16, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
14 FRY LAW CORPORATION
15
16
By:_________________________________
17 Christopher J. Fry, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
7
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT
2
3 I am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of California. I am over the age
of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 980 9th Street, 16th
4 Floor, Sacramento, California 95814. On November 16, 2022, I served the foregoing
document(s) described as:
5
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE
6
APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND TRIAL RELATED DATES OR IN THE
7 ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR NOTICE OF A MOTION
TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES
8
On all interested parties in this action as follows:
9
Defendant Placer Valley Sports Complex, Inc.:
10
Sinclair Wilson, et al.
11 Robert F. Sinclair, Esq.
2390 Professional Drive
12 Roseville, CA 95661
Email: rsinclair@swbclaw.com
13
14 [X] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION AND MAIL: I caused such documents to
be mailed and emailed to the email address above. I did not receive, within a reasonable
15 time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the
transmission was unsuccessful.
16
17 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at
whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws
18 of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on November 16, 2022, at
Sacramento, California.
19
20
21
____________________
22 Christopher J. Fry
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
8
Preview
1 Christopher J. Fry, Esq. (SBN: 298874) Email: cfry@frylawcorp.com 2 Kristine Du, Esq. (SBN: 338095) Email: kdu@frylawcorp.com 3 FRY LAW CORPORATION 980 9th Street, 16th Floor 4 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 291-0700 5 Facsimile: (916) 848-0256 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, SHERRY LARSEN and dba CALIFORNIA STATE ENTERPRISES 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER 10 11 12 SHERRY LARSEN, individually and dba CASE NO.: S-CV-0045659 CALIFORNIA STATE ENTERPRISES, 13 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Plaintiff, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX 14 PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE vs. TRIAL AND TRIAL RELATED DATES 15 OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN PLACER VALLEY SPORTS COMPLEX, ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR 16 INC. dba @the Grounds, a California NOTICE OF A MOTION TO CONTINUE Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, TRIAL AND RELATED DATES 17 Defendants. Date: November 17, 2022 18 Time: 8:00 a.m. 19 Dept.: 30 20 Trial: November 14, 2022 21 Action Filed: October 2, 2020 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1 Plaintiff, by and through counsel, hereby respectfully submits this Memorandum of 2 Points and Authorities in support of the ex parte application to continue trial and related dates, 3 or in the alternative, an order shortening time as set forth below: 4 This is a complicated contract case. It has not been pending long. The first deposition 5 in the case was taken only recently. Defendant just recently fully responded to discovery and 6 that discovery is deficient. Plaintiff was in pro per for a lengthy amount of time. Plaintiff only 7 recently retained current counsel. 8 The case was filed approximately two (2) years ago. Plaintiff alleges Defendant 9 cancelled the Facility License Agreement and Plaintiff’s rights to hold events at the Placer 10 County Fairgrounds between 2020 and 2025 in breach of the agreement. Plaintiff seeks 11 damages of over $250,000.00, interest, and attorney fees, trial should not be rushed. 12 No parties will suffer prejudice as Plaintiff no longer able to hold events at the 13 Fairgrounds, and time will only serve to clarify the claims and potentially prompt settlement 14 discussions. 15 Plaintiff retained present counsel in November of 2022. At that point, trial was set for 16 November 14, 2022, just a few days later. It is currently trailing waiting for a courtroom 17 Plaintiff’s counsels need time to review Plaintiff’s file and be up to date with the facts of the 18 case, it was apparent the case had work that needed to be done. Upon review of the prior 19 counsel’s file, it appears that at least a few depositions will be necessary to streamline trial 20 for the sake of the jury and the Court. Also, given the fact that trial is just days away, Plaintiff 21 and her new counsel will be hard pressed in orchestrating witnesses and evidence on such 22 short notice. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the application be 23 granted and her motion currently set for January 3, 2022, be heard now, or shortly after this 24 hearing. 25 LEGAL STANDARD REGARDING CONTINUANCES 26 Generally, “to ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for 27 trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” 28 (CRC 3.1332(a); see also CRC 3.1332(c)—“continuances of trial are disfavored.”) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 1 However, an affirmative showing of “good cause” according to Judicial Council standards 2 is required on a motion for continuance before trial. (CRC 3.1332(c).) 3 Despite the “disfavored” nature of trial continuances, each case must be 4 considered on its own merits. (CRC 3.1332(c).) The following circumstances may indicate 5 the presence of good cause warranting a continuance: 6 • unavailability of essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness or 7 other excusable circumstances; (CRC 3.1332(c)(1)) 8 • unavailability of a party because of death, illness or other excusable 9 circumstances; (CRC 3.1332(c)(2)) 10 • unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness or other excusable 11 circumstances; (CRC 3.1332(c)(3)) 12 • substitution of trial counsel where there is an “affirmative showing that the 13 substitution is required in the interests of justice”; (CRC 3.1332(c)(4)) 14 • addition of a new party if the new party has not had a reasonable opportunity 15 to conduct discovery or the other parties have not had an adequate opportunity 16 to prepare for trial in regard to the new party; (CRC 3.1332(c)(5)(A),(B)) 17 • a party’s inability to obtain essential testimony, documents or other material 18 evidence despite diligent efforts; or (CRC 3.1332(c)(6)) 19 • a significant unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which 20 the case is not ready for trial. (CRC 3.1332(c)(7)) 21 In ruling on a motion for trial continuance, the court will normally consider all 22 relevant matters, including: 23 • proximity of the trial date; 24 • any previous continuances, extensions of time or delays of trial; 25 • length of the requested continuance; 26 • availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the 27 continuance request; 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 3 1 • prejudice the parties or witnesses may suffer if there is a continuance; 2 • if the case is entitled to a preference, the reasons for that status and whether 3 the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; 4 • court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending 5 trials; 6 • whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; 7 • whether all parties have stipulated to the continuance; 8 • whether the “interests of justice” are best served by a continuance, trial of the 9 matter or imposing conditions on the continuance; and 10 • “(a)ny other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion 11 or application.” (CRC 3.1332(d)) 12 Whether to grant a continuance generally rests within the trial court’s broad 13 discretion. (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603; Oliveros v. 14 County of Los Angeles (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1395) 15 The court’s ruling on a continuance motion may be based on a “reasoned 16 judgment” and complies with the “legal principles and policies appropriate to the particular 17 matter at issue.” (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams, supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at 1603.) 18 However, refusal of a continuance which has the practical effect of denying the 19 applicant a fair hearing is not an appropriate use of discretion. (Oliveros v. County of Los 20 Angeles, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at 1395) 21 Based on the following, Plaintiff can show good cause to continue the trial and the 22 motion should be granted. 23 LEGAL STANDARD REGARDING SHORTENED TIME 24 The Court has discretion to grant an application for an order shortening upon a 25 showing “good cause” for the order. (See CRC 3.1202(c); Eliceche v. Federal Land Bank 26 Ass’n (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1369.) 27 Good cause exists for shortening the time to hear Plaintiff’s motion as the trial date 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 4 1 is trailing and may be set for less than one week from now. There is simply no time to 2 wait for the fully noticed motion as trial may come and go during the notice period. 3 ARGUMENT 4 A. Plaintiff’s Recent And Abrupt Need To Retain New Counsel Warrants A 5 Continuance. 6 A continuance motion should be granted when substitution of trial counsel has 7 occurred and there is an “affirmative showing that the substitution was required in the 8 interests of justice.” (CRC 3.1332(c)(4)) 9 As set forth above, Plaintiff retained her current counsel only days before trial. 10 Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s new counsel was only given a few days before trial to review 11 client’s file and to grasp all the facts and issues. 12 Additionally, upon review of prior counsel’s file, it is clear that discovery to 13 safeguard an effective trial will be necessary to ensure Plaintiff’s day in court. (Fry Dec.) 14 It is also clear that Plaintiff had no control or involvement in where the case lies. 15 As California’s High Court has instructed, no litigant should lose their day in court 16 due solely to their counsel. (See Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (Sup. Ct. 17 2002), 28 Cal.4th 249, 257.) 18 Continuances are also often granted when a significant unanticipated change in 19 the status of the case makes the case is not ready for trial. (CRC 3.1332(c)(7)) 20 Plaintiff certainly did not anticipate the fact that only minimal discovery had been 21 done. She did not expect to be forced to retain new counsel with just days before trial. 22 These changes are obviously unanticipated and grounds to continue the trial. 23 If the trial is not continued, Plaintiff will be required to present the case to the jury 24 with virtually no discovery and no witnesses. The result is even worse if the Court grants 25 the pending motions in limine based wholly on procedural issues that occurred while 26 Plaintiff was representing herself. This will result in a severely ineffective trial in terms of 27 time and merit. Justice and efficiency will not be served if trial moves forward with 28 discovery in the state it is. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 5 1 B. New Counsel and Plaintiff’s Inability To Conduct Discovery And Adequately 2 Prepare For Trial Warrants A Continuance. 3 A continuance motion should be granted when a party’s inability to obtain essential 4 testimony, documents or other material evidence despite diligent efforts is demonstrated. 5 (CRC 3.1332(c)(6).) 6 As set forth above, Plaintiff (and new counsel), at no fault of her own, has yet to 7 obtain even minimal discovery. Though Plaintiff has the basic facts to set forth her claims, 8 discovery is integral to this case as there are allegations of serious breaches of contract. 9 Plaintiff will likely discover critical details that will support (or refute) the claims if she is 10 given the opportunity to do so. At a minimum, she will be able to address the potentially 11 dispositive motions in limine filed by Defendant. A majority of the evidence in this case is 12 in the possession of Defendant and it has refused to produce it. 13 Lack of a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery is at least a factor when 14 determining whether to continue trial. (CRC 3.1332(c)(5)(A),(B)) 15 As such, Plaintiff and her new counsel should be required to try the case with only 16 the very limited discovery done by prior counsel. 17 C. This Motion is Timely. 18 A continuance motion must be made “as soon as reasonably practical once the 19 necessity for the continuance is discovered.” (CRC 3.1332(b).) As set forth herein, 20 Plaintiff only recently was able to retain counsel and was unable to prepare the case for 21 trial. She only retained new counsel in the last two weeks. 22 Plaintiff and her counsel immediately began working on the continuance motion. 23 As such, no delay exists. 24 D. Ex Parte Notice Requirements Were Satisfied And Required Showings Are 25 Met. 26 California Rules of Court, Rules 3.1200 – 3.1207 state, in pertinent part: 27 (a) Time of notice: A party seeking an ex parte order must notify all parties no later than 10:00 a.m. the court day before the ex parte appearance, absent a 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 6 1 showing of exceptional circumstances that justify a shorter time for notice. 2 Counsel for Plaintiff has submitted a declaration filed concurrently herewith, 3 demonstrating compliance with this rule set governing applications for ex parte relief. The 4 supporting Declaration of attorney Christopher J. Fry, Esq. states that the Defendants, or 5 their attorneys, were informed of the time, date and location of the ex parte hearing to be 6 held on November 17, 2022 by 8:00 a.m. 7 CONCLUSION 8 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant the 9 application to continue trial and related dates or in the alternative, issue an order 10 shortening time to hear the formal motion concurrently with this application. No parties 11 will suffer prejudice. 12 13 DATED: November 16, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 14 FRY LAW CORPORATION 15 16 By:_________________________________ 17 Christopher J. Fry, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 7 1 PROOF OF SERVICE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT 2 3 I am employed in the County of Sacramento, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 980 9th Street, 16th 4 Floor, Sacramento, California 95814. On November 16, 2022, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: 5 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE 6 APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND TRIAL RELATED DATES OR IN THE 7 ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR NOTICE OF A MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES 8 On all interested parties in this action as follows: 9 Defendant Placer Valley Sports Complex, Inc.: 10 Sinclair Wilson, et al. 11 Robert F. Sinclair, Esq. 2390 Professional Drive 12 Roseville, CA 95661 Email: rsinclair@swbclaw.com 13 14 [X] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION AND MAIL: I caused such documents to be mailed and emailed to the email address above. I did not receive, within a reasonable 15 time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 16 17 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws 18 of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on November 16, 2022, at Sacramento, California. 19 20 21 ____________________ 22 Christopher J. Fry 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 8