Preview
1 JEFFREY E. TSAI (SBN 226081)
jeff.tsai@us.dlapiper.com
2 KATHLEEN S. KIZER (SBN 246035)
kathy.kizer@us.dlapiper.com
3
EMILY ROSE MARGOLIS (SBN 324089)
4 emily.margolis@us.dlapiper.com
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
5 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
San Francisco, California 94105-2933
6 Tel: 415.836.2500 | Fax: 415.836.2501
7
Attorneys for Defendants
8 CELESTE WHITE, DR. ROBERT WHITE, and
THE VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION
9
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
FOR THE COUNTY OF NAPA
12
13
LISA KEITH, an individual, CASE NO. 22CV001269
14
Plaintiff, REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
15 MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR
v. HEARING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
16
CELESTE WHITE, an individual, ROBERT SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION
17 WHITE, an individual, the VALLEY ROCK
FOUNDATION, aka THE BAR 49 Date: December 8, 2023
18 FOUNDATION, a charitable organization, Time: 8:30 a.m.
and DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, Judge: Scott R.L. Young
19 Dept.: B
Defendants.
20 Complaint Filed: October 25, 2022
Trial Date: April 2, 2024
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
REPLY ISO MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR MSJ HEARING DATE
CASE NO. 22CV001269
1 By their motion, Defendants Valley Rock Foundation, Dr. Robert White, and Celeste
2 White ask the Court to exercise its discretion, under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c,
3 subdivision (a)(3), to extend by a mere two weeks the deadline for the Court to hear Defendants’
4 motion for summary judgment and/or adjudication (“MSJ”). Good cause exists to extend the
5 deadline as resolving issues on summary judgment/adjudication will streamline issues for trial,
6 and Plaintiff will suffer no prejudice.
7 A. Good Cause Exists to Extend the MSJ Hearing Deadline by Two Weeks.
8 The Court and the parties will benefit from the requested extension as Defendants’ MSJ
9 may eliminate altogether the need to have a time-consuming and expensive trial. At minimum, the
10 MSJ should resolve Plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and
11 fair dealing and third cause of action for intentional misrepresentation as the evidence shows
12 Plaintiff cannot prove either claim. Resolving these issues will thus reduce the parties’ time spent
13 in preparing for trial, including preparing witnesses, motions in limine, jury instructions, and trial
14 exhibits, and accordingly, conserve judicial resources. (See, e.g., Barnett v. Penske Truck Leasing
15 (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 494, 499 [By narrowing a case to triable issues, the motion for summary
16 judgment “promotes the efficient use of the courts.”].)
17 Good cause exists to extend the deadline by a mere two weeks because Defendants have
18 had to expend extensive efforts trying to obtain even minimal compliance with discovery from
19 Plaintiff, which compliance remains deficient as well-documented in the Foundation’s Motion to
20 Compel Plaintiff Lisa Keith’s Compliance with Document Requests to be heard by this Court on
21 the same date as this motion. Plaintiff’s discovery delays and noncompliance have made it nearly
22 impossible both to complete discovery and Defendants’ MSJ papers before December 12, 2023,
23 which is the current deadline to serve the MSJ in time for it to be heard by the current hearing
24 deadline of February 27, 2024.
25 B. Plaintiff Will Suffer No Prejudice if the Court Extends the MSJ Hearing
Deadline by Two Weeks.
26
27 Plaintiff’s Opposition incorrectly states that “Plaintiff will be unfairly prejudiced with the
28 abbreviated time to respond and prepare an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary
-2-
REPLY ISO MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR MSJ HEARING DATE
CASE NO. 22CV001269
1 judgment, as well as preparing for the imminent trial at the same time.” But even if the Court
2 extends the MSJ hearing deadline by two weeks, Plaintiff will still have 75 days to prepare and
3 file an opposition to Defendants’ MSJ. As Plaintiff admits, Defendants have already completed all
4 discovery. (Opp. ¶ 2.) Thus, if the Court grants the extension, Defendants will file and serve their
5 MSJ papers no later than December 26, 2023, which will result in Plaintiff’s Opposition being due
6 by February 27, 2024, at the latest. Plaintiff will then have more than a month to prepare for any
7 trial, if still needed, which will likely be greatly reduced in scope, as explained above. Thus,
8 Plaintiff will not suffer any prejudice by the Court extending the MSJ hearing deadline.
9 Indeed, the Honorable Cynthia P. Smith stated when granting Defendants’ request to have
10 this motion heard on shortened notice that parties routinely stipulate to such an extension.
11 Defendants asked Plaintiff to so stipulate, but Plaintiff refused, notwithstanding the lack of
12 prejudice, resulting in Defendants bringing this Motion, which should have been unnecessary.
13 C. The Court Has More Than Ample Discretion to Extend the MSJ Hearing
Deadline.
14
15 The Court has discretion to continue the hearing date to facilitate orderly and efficient
16 resolution of the issues in the case. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(3); see also Urshan v.
17 Musicians’ Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 764.) Even apart from the Court’s statutory
18 authority, “[i]t is well recognizd, that ‘all courts have inherent supervisory or administrative
19 powers which enable them to carry out their duties . . . .’” (First State Ins. Co. v. Superior Court
20 (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 324, 333-34 [citation omitted].) As good cause exists here, the Court
21 should exercise its discretion to extend the deadline to hear Defendants’ MSJ by two weeks to
22 March 12, 2024.
23 For the reasons explained in their motion and this reply, Defendants respectfully request
24 that the Court issue an order setting March 12, 2024, as the deadline to hear Defendants’ MSJ
25 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437, subdivision (a)(3).
26
27
28
-3-
REPLY ISO MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR MSJ HEARING DATE
CASE NO. 22CV001269
1 Dated: December 6, 2023 DLA PIPER LLP (US)
2
By:
3
Kathleen S. Kizer
4 Attorneys for Defendants
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
REPLY ISO MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR MSJ HEARING DATE
CASE NO. 22CV001269
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
3 I, Christina Perez, am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am
4 over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 555 Mission
5 Street, Suite 2400, San Francisco, California 94105-2933.
6 On December 6, 2023, I served the foregoing document(s) described as:
7 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND
DEADLINE FOR HEARING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
8 JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION
9 on the following:
10 John S. Rueppel
Angie Lam
11 JOHNSTON, KINNEY & ZULAICA LLP
12 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, California 94104
13 T: 415.693.0550
F: 415.693.0500
14 E: john@jkzllp.com
E: angie.lam@jkzllp.com
15
Attorneys for Plaintiff Lisa Keith
16
I transmitted copies of the document described above via e-mail to the persons at the email
17
addresses set forth above pursuant to the parties’ mutual agreement on or about March 21, 2023,
18
to provide service by e-mail.
19
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
20
true and correct.
21
Executed on December 6, 2023, at Fremont, California.
22
23
Christina Perez
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
1 JEFFREY E. TSAI (SBN 226081) jeff.tsai@us.dlapiper.com 2 KATHLEEN S. KIZER (SBN 246035) kathy.kizer@us.dlapiper.com 3 EMILY ROSE MARGOLIS (SBN 324089) 4 emily.margolis@us.dlapiper.com DLA PIPER LLP (US) 5 555 Mission Street, Suite 2400 San Francisco, California 94105-2933 6 Tel: 415.836.2500 | Fax: 415.836.2501 7 Attorneys for Defendants 8 CELESTE WHITE, DR. ROBERT WHITE, and THE VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 FOR THE COUNTY OF NAPA 12 13 LISA KEITH, an individual, CASE NO. 22CV001269 14 Plaintiff, REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ 15 MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR v. HEARING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 16 CELESTE WHITE, an individual, ROBERT SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION 17 WHITE, an individual, the VALLEY ROCK FOUNDATION, aka THE BAR 49 Date: December 8, 2023 18 FOUNDATION, a charitable organization, Time: 8:30 a.m. and DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, Judge: Scott R.L. Young 19 Dept.: B Defendants. 20 Complaint Filed: October 25, 2022 Trial Date: April 2, 2024 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- REPLY ISO MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR MSJ HEARING DATE CASE NO. 22CV001269 1 By their motion, Defendants Valley Rock Foundation, Dr. Robert White, and Celeste 2 White ask the Court to exercise its discretion, under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, 3 subdivision (a)(3), to extend by a mere two weeks the deadline for the Court to hear Defendants’ 4 motion for summary judgment and/or adjudication (“MSJ”). Good cause exists to extend the 5 deadline as resolving issues on summary judgment/adjudication will streamline issues for trial, 6 and Plaintiff will suffer no prejudice. 7 A. Good Cause Exists to Extend the MSJ Hearing Deadline by Two Weeks. 8 The Court and the parties will benefit from the requested extension as Defendants’ MSJ 9 may eliminate altogether the need to have a time-consuming and expensive trial. At minimum, the 10 MSJ should resolve Plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and 11 fair dealing and third cause of action for intentional misrepresentation as the evidence shows 12 Plaintiff cannot prove either claim. Resolving these issues will thus reduce the parties’ time spent 13 in preparing for trial, including preparing witnesses, motions in limine, jury instructions, and trial 14 exhibits, and accordingly, conserve judicial resources. (See, e.g., Barnett v. Penske Truck Leasing 15 (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 494, 499 [By narrowing a case to triable issues, the motion for summary 16 judgment “promotes the efficient use of the courts.”].) 17 Good cause exists to extend the deadline by a mere two weeks because Defendants have 18 had to expend extensive efforts trying to obtain even minimal compliance with discovery from 19 Plaintiff, which compliance remains deficient as well-documented in the Foundation’s Motion to 20 Compel Plaintiff Lisa Keith’s Compliance with Document Requests to be heard by this Court on 21 the same date as this motion. Plaintiff’s discovery delays and noncompliance have made it nearly 22 impossible both to complete discovery and Defendants’ MSJ papers before December 12, 2023, 23 which is the current deadline to serve the MSJ in time for it to be heard by the current hearing 24 deadline of February 27, 2024. 25 B. Plaintiff Will Suffer No Prejudice if the Court Extends the MSJ Hearing Deadline by Two Weeks. 26 27 Plaintiff’s Opposition incorrectly states that “Plaintiff will be unfairly prejudiced with the 28 abbreviated time to respond and prepare an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary -2- REPLY ISO MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR MSJ HEARING DATE CASE NO. 22CV001269 1 judgment, as well as preparing for the imminent trial at the same time.” But even if the Court 2 extends the MSJ hearing deadline by two weeks, Plaintiff will still have 75 days to prepare and 3 file an opposition to Defendants’ MSJ. As Plaintiff admits, Defendants have already completed all 4 discovery. (Opp. ¶ 2.) Thus, if the Court grants the extension, Defendants will file and serve their 5 MSJ papers no later than December 26, 2023, which will result in Plaintiff’s Opposition being due 6 by February 27, 2024, at the latest. Plaintiff will then have more than a month to prepare for any 7 trial, if still needed, which will likely be greatly reduced in scope, as explained above. Thus, 8 Plaintiff will not suffer any prejudice by the Court extending the MSJ hearing deadline. 9 Indeed, the Honorable Cynthia P. Smith stated when granting Defendants’ request to have 10 this motion heard on shortened notice that parties routinely stipulate to such an extension. 11 Defendants asked Plaintiff to so stipulate, but Plaintiff refused, notwithstanding the lack of 12 prejudice, resulting in Defendants bringing this Motion, which should have been unnecessary. 13 C. The Court Has More Than Ample Discretion to Extend the MSJ Hearing Deadline. 14 15 The Court has discretion to continue the hearing date to facilitate orderly and efficient 16 resolution of the issues in the case. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(3); see also Urshan v. 17 Musicians’ Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 764.) Even apart from the Court’s statutory 18 authority, “[i]t is well recognizd, that ‘all courts have inherent supervisory or administrative 19 powers which enable them to carry out their duties . . . .’” (First State Ins. Co. v. Superior Court 20 (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 324, 333-34 [citation omitted].) As good cause exists here, the Court 21 should exercise its discretion to extend the deadline to hear Defendants’ MSJ by two weeks to 22 March 12, 2024. 23 For the reasons explained in their motion and this reply, Defendants respectfully request 24 that the Court issue an order setting March 12, 2024, as the deadline to hear Defendants’ MSJ 25 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437, subdivision (a)(3). 26 27 28 -3- REPLY ISO MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR MSJ HEARING DATE CASE NO. 22CV001269 1 Dated: December 6, 2023 DLA PIPER LLP (US) 2 By: 3 Kathleen S. Kizer 4 Attorneys for Defendants 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- REPLY ISO MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR MSJ HEARING DATE CASE NO. 22CV001269 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 I, Christina Perez, am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am 4 over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 555 Mission 5 Street, Suite 2400, San Francisco, California 94105-2933. 6 On December 6, 2023, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: 7 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR HEARING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 8 JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION 9 on the following: 10 John S. Rueppel Angie Lam 11 JOHNSTON, KINNEY & ZULAICA LLP 12 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, California 94104 13 T: 415.693.0550 F: 415.693.0500 14 E: john@jkzllp.com E: angie.lam@jkzllp.com 15 Attorneys for Plaintiff Lisa Keith 16 I transmitted copies of the document described above via e-mail to the persons at the email 17 addresses set forth above pursuant to the parties’ mutual agreement on or about March 21, 2023, 18 to provide service by e-mail. 19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is 20 true and correct. 21 Executed on December 6, 2023, at Fremont, California. 22 23 Christina Perez 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE