Preview
DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ. (SBN 219230) ..
L.
HT
E
Cf:
DCALtFORNIA
LOGAN G. PASCAL, ESQ. (SBN 324733) AN. {ERNARDINO
THE BARRY LAW FIRM . MHNO ENS (RICT
11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1270 .
Los Angeles, CA 90064 M&Y 1 7 2823
Telephone: 310.684.5859
“
Facsimile: 310.862.4539
Attorneys for Plaintiff, JAMES BRUSSARD ’ R'Cha'd Mama“ 09M“
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO — SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER
10
JAMES BRUSSARD, an individual, Case No. CIVD52019921
11
12
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE
13
APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL;
v. DECLARATION OF LOGAN G. PASCAL
14
Date:May 18, 2023
15
Time: 8:30 a.m.
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A Delaware Dept,;514
16
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through Action Filed; September 21, 2020
17 i '
Jury Trial: May 22, 2023
20, 1nclu51ve,
18
Defendants. Assignedfor all purposes t0 Hon. Jeffrey R.
Erickson — Dept. SI4
19
20
21 I. INTRODUCTION
22 Plaintiff JAMES BRUSSARD (“Plaintiff”) submits the following Opposition to Defendant
23 GENERAL MOTORS LLC’s (“Defendant” or “GM”) Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial (the
24 “Ex Parte Application”).
25 Defendant GM’s Ex Parte Application has an insufficient showing of irreparable harm,
26 immediate danger, or any other basis upon which relief may be granted and Defendant failed to
27 affirmatively show good cause t0 continue the May 22, 2023 trial date. Defendant failed to inform
28 the Court of the full history 0f this case and hid the fact that its alleged irreparable harm is self-
-1-
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION T0 DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO
CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF LOGAN G. PASCAL
inflicted. Defendant has known of the May 22, 2023 trial date since October 5, 2022. Despite
Defendant having the opportunity to depose Plaintiff and inspect the subject vehicle, it refused to do
so. Instead, Defendant waited until the eleventh hour to bring its Ex Parte Application with the
UI-erJN
ultimate goal of obtaining a trial continuance in order to further delay the resolution of this case.
The general rule is that a notice of motion must be given whenever the order sought may
affect the rights of an adverse party. McDonald v. Severy, 6 Cal. 2d 629, 63 1 ,
59 P.2d 98 ( 1936). The
applicant must make an affirmative factual showing in a declaration, based on personal knowledge,
\OOO\10\
of the irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting ex parte relief
rather than setting the matter for a hearing on noticed motion. Cal. Rules ofCourt, rule 3.1202(c);
10 Datig v. Dove Books, Ina, 73 Cal. App. 4th 964, 976, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 719 (2d Dist. 1999), as
11 modified on denial of reh'g, (Aug. 13, 1999). Here, any irreparable harm or danger is the result of
12 Defendant’s own strategy of delaying the resolution of this case.
13 Defendant GM regularly waits until the eve of trial to delay. This is Defendant’s strategy on
14 display. Based on the foregoing, this Ex Parte Application is completely unnecessary, and there are
15 absolutely no exigent circumstances that exist Which warrant the continuing ofthe previously set and
16 firm trial date. Defendant’s Ex Parte Application should be denied in its entirety.
17 II. NO CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT WARRANT THE CONTINUING OF THE
18 PREVIOUSLY SET TRIAL DATE
19 A. Defendant GM has been Dilatorv in Preparing for Trial and is Using thigEx
20 Parte Application to Remedv that Failm
21 This matter was filed on September 2 1 2020. Defendant , GM has been dilatory in preparing
22 itself for trial in this matter, and again is using the rapidly approaching trial date as an enfeebled
23 attempt to establish that good cause exists for the granting of this Ex Parte Application where clearly
24 none exists. Defendant, by all means, had every opportunity to avail itself of the protections afforded
25 by the Code of Civil Procedure and this Court. Rather, Defendant waited until the eve of trial to seek
26 a trial continuance. Defendant seeks this continuance because it knows this dilemma is entirely due
27 to its own procrastination and carelessness. Plaintiff should not be prejudiced because of Defendant’s
28 own internal disorganization.
-2-
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO
CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF LOGAN G. PASCAL
Preview
DAVID N. BARRY, ESQ. (SBN 219230) .. L. HT E Cf: DCALtFORNIA LOGAN G. PASCAL, ESQ. (SBN 324733) AN. {ERNARDINO THE BARRY LAW FIRM . MHNO ENS (RICT 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1270 . Los Angeles, CA 90064 M&Y 1 7 2823 Telephone: 310.684.5859 “ Facsimile: 310.862.4539 Attorneys for Plaintiff, JAMES BRUSSARD ’ R'Cha'd Mama“ 09M“ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO — SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER 10 JAMES BRUSSARD, an individual, Case No. CIVD52019921 11 12 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO Plaintiff, DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE 13 APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; v. DECLARATION OF LOGAN G. PASCAL 14 Date:May 18, 2023 15 Time: 8:30 a.m. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A Delaware Dept,;514 16 Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through Action Filed; September 21, 2020 17 i ' Jury Trial: May 22, 2023 20, 1nclu51ve, 18 Defendants. Assignedfor all purposes t0 Hon. Jeffrey R. Erickson — Dept. SI4 19 20 21 I. INTRODUCTION 22 Plaintiff JAMES BRUSSARD (“Plaintiff”) submits the following Opposition to Defendant 23 GENERAL MOTORS LLC’s (“Defendant” or “GM”) Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial (the 24 “Ex Parte Application”). 25 Defendant GM’s Ex Parte Application has an insufficient showing of irreparable harm, 26 immediate danger, or any other basis upon which relief may be granted and Defendant failed to 27 affirmatively show good cause t0 continue the May 22, 2023 trial date. Defendant failed to inform 28 the Court of the full history 0f this case and hid the fact that its alleged irreparable harm is self- -1- PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION T0 DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF LOGAN G. PASCAL inflicted. Defendant has known of the May 22, 2023 trial date since October 5, 2022. Despite Defendant having the opportunity to depose Plaintiff and inspect the subject vehicle, it refused to do so. Instead, Defendant waited until the eleventh hour to bring its Ex Parte Application with the UI-erJN ultimate goal of obtaining a trial continuance in order to further delay the resolution of this case. The general rule is that a notice of motion must be given whenever the order sought may affect the rights of an adverse party. McDonald v. Severy, 6 Cal. 2d 629, 63 1 , 59 P.2d 98 ( 1936). The applicant must make an affirmative factual showing in a declaration, based on personal knowledge, \OOO\10\ of the irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting ex parte relief rather than setting the matter for a hearing on noticed motion. Cal. Rules ofCourt, rule 3.1202(c); 10 Datig v. Dove Books, Ina, 73 Cal. App. 4th 964, 976, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 719 (2d Dist. 1999), as 11 modified on denial of reh'g, (Aug. 13, 1999). Here, any irreparable harm or danger is the result of 12 Defendant’s own strategy of delaying the resolution of this case. 13 Defendant GM regularly waits until the eve of trial to delay. This is Defendant’s strategy on 14 display. Based on the foregoing, this Ex Parte Application is completely unnecessary, and there are 15 absolutely no exigent circumstances that exist Which warrant the continuing ofthe previously set and 16 firm trial date. Defendant’s Ex Parte Application should be denied in its entirety. 17 II. NO CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT WARRANT THE CONTINUING OF THE 18 PREVIOUSLY SET TRIAL DATE 19 A. Defendant GM has been Dilatorv in Preparing for Trial and is Using thigEx 20 Parte Application to Remedv that Failm 21 This matter was filed on September 2 1 2020. Defendant , GM has been dilatory in preparing 22 itself for trial in this matter, and again is using the rapidly approaching trial date as an enfeebled 23 attempt to establish that good cause exists for the granting of this Ex Parte Application where clearly 24 none exists. Defendant, by all means, had every opportunity to avail itself of the protections afforded 25 by the Code of Civil Procedure and this Court. Rather, Defendant waited until the eve of trial to seek 26 a trial continuance. Defendant seeks this continuance because it knows this dilemma is entirely due 27 to its own procrastination and carelessness. Plaintiff should not be prejudiced because of Defendant’s 28 own internal disorganization. -2- PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; DECLARATION OF LOGAN G. PASCAL