Preview
1 ’9 vb. LI « ‘ .
w w aw; W:
w
-;‘
2’7
‘ u.
‘
‘,
V
v.
'
_ .
,
z
.m
37:9 r2
Colin M. Jones, Esq. SBN: 265628
A. Ilyas Akbari, Esq. SBN: 228051 Fl L E D
SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORMA
Nineli Sarkissian, Esq., SBN: 317724 COUNTY or: SAN BERNAHDINO
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM CIVIL DIVISION
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
E‘ST 1:1 2:322
Los Angeles, California 90010
OOWNOU‘IAOONA
Tel.:(213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email: colinsteam@wilshirelawfirm.com
wJEQmM S ephanie Reed, Deputy
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ALMA ROSA AMADOR, individually and CASE NO.: CIVSBZOZ5762
as the Administrator for the Estate of [Hon. Brian S. McCarvilIe, Dept. 830]
A—A—AAAA
PLC Floor
ALONSO AMADOR; HAYDEE MORAN,
AMENDED OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE
90010-1137
FIRM,
12‘“
an individual; ALONSO AMADOR, an
LAW
Blvd,
CA 01$ng
individual; ANNETTE AMADOR, an APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO
Wilshire
Angeles,
individual; ANTHONY AMADOR, an CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND ALL TRIAL
WILSHIRE
individual, RELATED DEADLINES, OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER TO
3055
Los
Plaintiffs,
vs. SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
KAO LOGISTICS, |NC., a company;
Date: 10/1 4/22
JAMES JOSEPH MARTIN, an individual;
Time: 8:30 AM H“ 3V Fax
NNNAAAA
NAOCOOONO
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive. 3’53 Cflc
Dept: sso-SBJC
Defendants. 20303
Complaint Filed: 10/12/20
Trial: 12/12/22
The Court must deny Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to continue trial and trial
related deadlines because their recent change of counsel and failure to complete
discovery does not constitute good cause for the continuance.
“T0 ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a
mNQU'I-hoo
trial are
NNNNNN
firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” CRC
3.1332(a). “Trial continuances are ‘disfavored’ . . Reales lnv., LLC v. Johnson (2020)
55 Cal. App. 5th 463, 468. To effectuate this policy, the Delay Reduction Act directs
1
AMENDED OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE
A judges to commence trials on the scheduled date and to adopt a “firm, consistent policy
against continuances, to the maximum extent possible and reasonable.” Gov. C. §
68607(f), (g) (emphasis added). Trial continuances may only be granted where the
requested for a continuance is made “as soon as reasonably practical once the
necessity for the continuance is discovered” and there is a showing of “good cause.”
OQOOONODUIAOON CRC 3.1332(b), (c).
Defendants KAO Logistics, |nc., and James Joseph Martin filed their answer on
February 26, 2021, and Keystone Automotive Operations, |nc., filed its answer on May
24, 2021. Throughout this litigation, all Defendants have been represented by Bremer
Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, until approximately one week ago, on October 6, 2022,
when Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, substituted in as counsel of record for all Defendants.
The current trial date of December 12, 2022, was set at the trial setting conference of
PLC Floor
137
December 10, 2021.
12‘"
90010-1
FIRM,
Blvd, Defendants clearly have had more than enough time to complete the depositions
CA
LAW
\Mlshire
Angeles.
of Plaintiffs by now, and Defendants do not claim that Plaintiffs in any way prevented
WILSHIRE
3055
Los
these depositions from taking place. Defendants’ prior counsel simply never noticed the
depositions. The current non-expert discovery cutoff is November 11, 2022, so there is
more than enough time to complete these depositions before then. Defendants do not
indicate any other discovery which they believe cannot be completed before November
11, 2022. Therefore, Defendants have failed to demonstrate good cause for either a
trial continuance or continuance of the discovery cutoff since the only uncompleted
discovery described in the ex parte application — the depositions of Plaintiffs — can be
completed before the current discovery cutoff.
Attorney Robert Romero’s trial conflict also does notjustify a continuance of trial.
If Mr. Romero knew that he was unavailable to represent the Defendants at trial
_
commencing on December 12, 2022, because he was starting another trial on
December 5, 2022, then he should not have accepted the representation. Further, the
docket for Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 198TCV26702 indicates that Mr.
2
AMENDED OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE
Preview
1 ’9 vb. LI « ‘ . w w aw; W: w -;‘ 2’7 ‘ u. ‘ ‘, V v. ' _ . , z .m 37:9 r2 Colin M. Jones, Esq. SBN: 265628 A. Ilyas Akbari, Esq. SBN: 228051 Fl L E D SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORMA Nineli Sarkissian, Esq., SBN: 317724 COUNTY or: SAN BERNAHDINO WILSHIRE LAW FIRM CIVIL DIVISION 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor E‘ST 1:1 2:322 Los Angeles, California 90010 OOWNOU‘IAOONA Tel.:(213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: colinsteam@wilshirelawfirm.com wJEQmM S ephanie Reed, Deputy Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ALMA ROSA AMADOR, individually and CASE NO.: CIVSBZOZ5762 as the Administrator for the Estate of [Hon. Brian S. McCarvilIe, Dept. 830] A—A—AAAA PLC Floor ALONSO AMADOR; HAYDEE MORAN, AMENDED OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE 90010-1137 FIRM, 12‘“ an individual; ALONSO AMADOR, an LAW Blvd, CA 01$ng individual; ANNETTE AMADOR, an APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO Wilshire Angeles, individual; ANTHONY AMADOR, an CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND ALL TRIAL WILSHIRE individual, RELATED DEADLINES, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER TO 3055 Los Plaintiffs, vs. SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL KAO LOGISTICS, |NC., a company; Date: 10/1 4/22 JAMES JOSEPH MARTIN, an individual; Time: 8:30 AM H“ 3V Fax NNNAAAA NAOCOOONO DOES 1 through 50, inclusive. 3’53 Cflc Dept: sso-SBJC Defendants. 20303 Complaint Filed: 10/12/20 Trial: 12/12/22 The Court must deny Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to continue trial and trial related deadlines because their recent change of counsel and failure to complete discovery does not constitute good cause for the continuance. “T0 ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a mNQU'I-hoo trial are NNNNNN firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” CRC 3.1332(a). “Trial continuances are ‘disfavored’ . . Reales lnv., LLC v. Johnson (2020) 55 Cal. App. 5th 463, 468. To effectuate this policy, the Delay Reduction Act directs 1 AMENDED OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE A judges to commence trials on the scheduled date and to adopt a “firm, consistent policy against continuances, to the maximum extent possible and reasonable.” Gov. C. § 68607(f), (g) (emphasis added). Trial continuances may only be granted where the requested for a continuance is made “as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered” and there is a showing of “good cause.” OQOOONODUIAOON CRC 3.1332(b), (c). Defendants KAO Logistics, |nc., and James Joseph Martin filed their answer on February 26, 2021, and Keystone Automotive Operations, |nc., filed its answer on May 24, 2021. Throughout this litigation, all Defendants have been represented by Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, until approximately one week ago, on October 6, 2022, when Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, substituted in as counsel of record for all Defendants. The current trial date of December 12, 2022, was set at the trial setting conference of PLC Floor 137 December 10, 2021. 12‘" 90010-1 FIRM, Blvd, Defendants clearly have had more than enough time to complete the depositions CA LAW \Mlshire Angeles. of Plaintiffs by now, and Defendants do not claim that Plaintiffs in any way prevented WILSHIRE 3055 Los these depositions from taking place. Defendants’ prior counsel simply never noticed the depositions. The current non-expert discovery cutoff is November 11, 2022, so there is more than enough time to complete these depositions before then. Defendants do not indicate any other discovery which they believe cannot be completed before November 11, 2022. Therefore, Defendants have failed to demonstrate good cause for either a trial continuance or continuance of the discovery cutoff since the only uncompleted discovery described in the ex parte application — the depositions of Plaintiffs — can be completed before the current discovery cutoff. Attorney Robert Romero’s trial conflict also does notjustify a continuance of trial. If Mr. Romero knew that he was unavailable to represent the Defendants at trial _ commencing on December 12, 2022, because he was starting another trial on December 5, 2022, then he should not have accepted the representation. Further, the docket for Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 198TCV26702 indicates that Mr. 2 AMENDED OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE