Preview
NORMAN LA FORCE, SBN 102772
LAW OFFICE 0F CHRISTIAN B. GREEN
F. L E D
555 12m Street, Suite 600
Oakland, CA 94607 OCT l 8 2018
Direct Line: 510-645-23 l4
Telephone:
Facsimile;
Email:
510-545-2391
866—853-8846
Norman.LaForccHfiCNAfiom By
mwmmmw . ... ..
DIPU'I'V
R. ARA
Attorneys for Respondent
LITTLE ORCHARD BUSINESS PARK OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
\OOQNG
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
JULIE T. NGUYEN CASE NO.: 17CV317898
Petitioner, Assigned for All Purposes
Judge: Hon. Theodore Zayner
v. Dept; 6
LITTLE ORCHARD BUSINESS PARK EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER
OWNERS ASSOCIATION, CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND
RELATED DEADLINES PER
Respondent. STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES,
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF;
AND DECLARATION OF NORMAN LA
FORCE
Ex Parte Hearing:
Date: October 18, 2018
Time: 8:15 a.m.
Dept: 6
Complaint Filed: October 23, 2017
Current Trial date: December 17, 2018
l
EX PARTE APPLICATON FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DEADLINES
.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that 0n October 18, 2018, at 8:15 a.m., before the
[Q Honorable Theodore Zayner, in Department 6, of Santa Clara Supen'or Court, located at 191
N. First Street, San Jose, CA 951 13, Respondent, LITTLE ORCHARD BUSINESS PARK
OWNERS ASSOCIATION (“Respondent“), will apply Ex Parte for an Order continuing the
Trial of this action scheduled to commence on December 17, 201 8, pursuant to the stipulation
of the parties.
I. GROUNDS FOR EX PARTE APPLICATION
\OOO\IO\
There is a good cause for the requested continuance for the following reasons:
l. Respondent’s counsel, Norman La Force, recently substituted in and
filed its substitution on September 17, 2018, and he was not Respondent’s counsel at the time
the trial date was set;
2. Respondent’s counsel will be unavailable due to a previously committed
vacation from December l7, 2018 to December 3 1, 2018 with pre-paid air plane tickets;
3. The parties have stipulated t0 the continuance. See the stipulation is attached as
Exhibit “A" to the Declaration 0f Norman La Force;
4. The panies’ counsel have “met and conferred” and agreed that a trial
continuance in this matter is necessary for all parties;
5. This is the first request for a continuance in this case.
ll. NOTICE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT. RULE 3.12M
Petitioner’s counsel received timely notice 0f this Application as required by Rule of
Court 3.1203. (See La Force Declaration fl 8-9.) The parties have stipulated to this
Application. (See La Force Declaration 1] 8, Exhibit 1.)
llI. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Trial judges have a great deal of leeway in granting continuances. “The factors which
influence the granting 0r denying 0f a continuance in any particular case are so varied that the
trial judge must necessarily exercise a broad discretion.” Taylor v. Bell (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d
1002, 1007. (Sec also Bussard v. Dept. Q/‘Motor Vehicles (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 858, 864).
7
EX PARTE APPLICATON FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DEADLINES
California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3. 1332 governs applications and motions
concerning trial dates. The Rule provides that a party seeking a continuance whether contested
or not, must make the request for a continuance by noticed motion or ex pane application with
supporting declarations and should make the motion as soon as reasonably practicable once the
necessity for the motion is discover. CRC Rule 3.1332(b).
Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1332(0), the court may grant a continuance of the trial date on
an affirmative showing of good cause. In determining if there is good cause for a trial
continuance, the Court must consider all facts and circumstances which are relevant t0 the
determination. CRC Rule 3.1332(d) provides as follows:
(d) Other Factors Favor a Continuance of the Trial Date
In ruling 0n a motion or application for continuance, the court must
consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the
determination. These may include:
(l) The proximity 0f the trial date;
(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension
of time, 0r delay 0f trial due t0 any party;
(3) The length of the continuance requested;
(4) The availability 0f alternative means to address the
problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a
continuance;
(5) The prejudice that parties 0r witnesses will suffer as a
result 0f the continuance;
(6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the
reasons for that status and whether the need for a
continuance outweighs the need t0 avoid delay;
(7) The court’s calendar and the impact of granting a
continuance 0n other pending trials;
(8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;
(9) Whether all parties have stipulated t0 a continuance;
(10) Whether the interests 0f justice are best served by a
continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing
conditions on the continuance; and
(1 l) Any other fact or circumstance relevant t0 the fair determination of the
3
EX PARTE APPLICATON FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DEADLINES
motion or application.
VI. CONCLUSION
Good cause exists here. Counsel for Respondent just recently substituted into the case.
He had not been involved in the original setting of the case for trial. The trial date conflicts
with an existing already set vacation with pre-paid airplane tickets. There has been no prior
continuance. The continuance is a short one, and the parties have stipulated to the continuance.
Therefore, Respondent requests the court grant the continuance.
Dated: October l6, 2018 LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTIAN B. GREEN
f7 ,q
f.
.
-~”
"éI/afiflfi'z
w/
V‘fir V‘W
,.
By:
NORMAN LA FORCE, ESQ.
Attorneys for Respondent
ORCHARD BUSINESS PARK
LITTLE
OWNERS ASSOCIATION
4
EX PARTE APPLICATON FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DEADLINES
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the County 0f Alameda, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not
a party to the within action; my business address is: 555 12m Street, Suite 600, Oakland, CA
94607.
On October 16, 201816, 2018, served the foregoing document described as EX PARTE
I
APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED
DEADLINES PER STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF on the party(ies) in this action in a sealed
envelope addressed as follows:
DENNIS KOLLENBORN
LAW OFFICE OF DENNIS KOLLENBORN
150 Almaden Blvd., Suite 950
San Jose, CA 95113
(408) 286-2221 (Tel)
(408) 280-0818 (Fax)
Email: dennisaikollenbornlaw.c0m
E BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANMISSIONS: I caused the document(s) listed
above to be sent to the persons at the e-mail address(es) listed above. I did not receive, within
a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the
transmission was unsuccessful.
g BY MAIL: As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the finn's practice 0f collection and
processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S.
postal service on same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Oakland, California, in
that
the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion 0f the party served, service is
presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after
date ofdeposit for mailing in affidavit.
E (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the above is true and correct.
Executed on October 16, 201 8, at Oakland, California.
fl/M’QMLL
MICHELE K. HO
K Me:
5
EX PARTE APPLICATON FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DEADLINES
Preview
NORMAN LA FORCE, SBN 102772 LAW OFFICE 0F CHRISTIAN B. GREEN F. L E D 555 12m Street, Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94607 OCT l 8 2018 Direct Line: 510-645-23 l4 Telephone: Facsimile; Email: 510-545-2391 866—853-8846 Norman.LaForccHfiCNAfiom By mwmmmw . ... .. DIPU'I'V R. ARA Attorneys for Respondent LITTLE ORCHARD BUSINESS PARK OWNERS ASSOCIATION \OOQNG SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA JULIE T. NGUYEN CASE NO.: 17CV317898 Petitioner, Assigned for All Purposes Judge: Hon. Theodore Zayner v. Dept; 6 LITTLE ORCHARD BUSINESS PARK EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER OWNERS ASSOCIATION, CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DEADLINES PER Respondent. STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; AND DECLARATION OF NORMAN LA FORCE Ex Parte Hearing: Date: October 18, 2018 Time: 8:15 a.m. Dept: 6 Complaint Filed: October 23, 2017 Current Trial date: December 17, 2018 l EX PARTE APPLICATON FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DEADLINES . PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that 0n October 18, 2018, at 8:15 a.m., before the [Q Honorable Theodore Zayner, in Department 6, of Santa Clara Supen'or Court, located at 191 N. First Street, San Jose, CA 951 13, Respondent, LITTLE ORCHARD BUSINESS PARK OWNERS ASSOCIATION (“Respondent“), will apply Ex Parte for an Order continuing the Trial of this action scheduled to commence on December 17, 201 8, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. I. GROUNDS FOR EX PARTE APPLICATION \OOO\IO\ There is a good cause for the requested continuance for the following reasons: l. Respondent’s counsel, Norman La Force, recently substituted in and filed its substitution on September 17, 2018, and he was not Respondent’s counsel at the time the trial date was set; 2. Respondent’s counsel will be unavailable due to a previously committed vacation from December l7, 2018 to December 3 1, 2018 with pre-paid air plane tickets; 3. The parties have stipulated t0 the continuance. See the stipulation is attached as Exhibit “A" to the Declaration 0f Norman La Force; 4. The panies’ counsel have “met and conferred” and agreed that a trial continuance in this matter is necessary for all parties; 5. This is the first request for a continuance in this case. ll. NOTICE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT. RULE 3.12M Petitioner’s counsel received timely notice 0f this Application as required by Rule of Court 3.1203. (See La Force Declaration fl 8-9.) The parties have stipulated to this Application. (See La Force Declaration 1] 8, Exhibit 1.) llI. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Trial judges have a great deal of leeway in granting continuances. “The factors which influence the granting 0r denying 0f a continuance in any particular case are so varied that the trial judge must necessarily exercise a broad discretion.” Taylor v. Bell (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1007. (Sec also Bussard v. Dept. Q/‘Motor Vehicles (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 858, 864). 7 EX PARTE APPLICATON FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DEADLINES California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3. 1332 governs applications and motions concerning trial dates. The Rule provides that a party seeking a continuance whether contested or not, must make the request for a continuance by noticed motion or ex pane application with supporting declarations and should make the motion as soon as reasonably practicable once the necessity for the motion is discover. CRC Rule 3.1332(b). Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1332(0), the court may grant a continuance of the trial date on an affirmative showing of good cause. In determining if there is good cause for a trial continuance, the Court must consider all facts and circumstances which are relevant t0 the determination. CRC Rule 3.1332(d) provides as follows: (d) Other Factors Favor a Continuance of the Trial Date In ruling 0n a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include: (l) The proximity 0f the trial date; (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, 0r delay 0f trial due t0 any party; (3) The length of the continuance requested; (4) The availability 0f alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; (5) The prejudice that parties 0r witnesses will suffer as a result 0f the continuance; (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need t0 avoid delay; (7) The court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance 0n other pending trials; (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) Whether all parties have stipulated t0 a continuance; (10) Whether the interests 0f justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (1 l) Any other fact or circumstance relevant t0 the fair determination of the 3 EX PARTE APPLICATON FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DEADLINES motion or application. VI. CONCLUSION Good cause exists here. Counsel for Respondent just recently substituted into the case. He had not been involved in the original setting of the case for trial. The trial date conflicts with an existing already set vacation with pre-paid airplane tickets. There has been no prior continuance. The continuance is a short one, and the parties have stipulated to the continuance. Therefore, Respondent requests the court grant the continuance. Dated: October l6, 2018 LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTIAN B. GREEN f7 ,q f. . -~” "éI/afiflfi'z w/ V‘fir V‘W ,. By: NORMAN LA FORCE, ESQ. Attorneys for Respondent ORCHARD BUSINESS PARK LITTLE OWNERS ASSOCIATION 4 EX PARTE APPLICATON FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DEADLINES PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County 0f Alameda, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 555 12m Street, Suite 600, Oakland, CA 94607. On October 16, 201816, 2018, served the foregoing document described as EX PARTE I APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DEADLINES PER STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF on the party(ies) in this action in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: DENNIS KOLLENBORN LAW OFFICE OF DENNIS KOLLENBORN 150 Almaden Blvd., Suite 950 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 286-2221 (Tel) (408) 280-0818 (Fax) Email: dennisaikollenbornlaw.c0m E BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANMISSIONS: I caused the document(s) listed above to be sent to the persons at the e-mail address(es) listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. g BY MAIL: As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the finn's practice 0f collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Oakland, California, in that the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion 0f the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date ofdeposit for mailing in affidavit. E (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on October 16, 201 8, at Oakland, California. fl/M’QMLL MICHELE K. HO K Me: 5 EX PARTE APPLICATON FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DEADLINES