Preview
Mary Lynn Arens, Bar No.: 282459
Mitchel Brim, Bar No.: 239341
ERSKINE LAW GROUP, PC SUPERIOR COU
COUNTY OF PLAGE OFNIA
3995 East La Palma Avenue
Lo
Anaheim, California 92807 SEP 03 2019
Tel: (949) 777-6032 JAKE CHATTERS
Fax: (714) 844-9035 EXECUTIVE OFFICER & CLERK
By: C. Henderson, Deputy
Nn
marens@erskinelaw.com
mbrim@erskinelaw.com
ND
Attorneys for Defendant
GENERAL MOTORS LLC
Oo
ODO
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Go
FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
11
YESENIA LEYVA, an individual, and Case No.: S-CV-0041782
WS
12 JUAN C. LEYVA, an individual,
US
Honorable Alan V. Pineschi
13
GS
Plaintiffs, Dept.: 42
SG
14
HS
VS. GENERAL MOTORS LLC'S EX PARTE
BS
15 APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 120
SS
GENERAL MOTORS LLC; a Limited DAYS AND ALL-RELATED DATES;
16
SS
Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 50, ALTERNATIVELY, ADVANCE THE
inclusive, HEARING DATE FOR ITS MOTION TO
17
SS
COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
18 Defendants.
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF;
DECLARATION OF MITCHEL BRIM IN
19 SUPPORT THEREOF
TOTS
20
Hearing Date: September 3, 2019
21 Hearing Time: 8:00 a.m.
Department: 42
22
Date Filed: September 12, 2018
23
Trial Date: September 23, 2019
24
Filed concurrently with:
25 1. Proposed Order
26
27
28
1
GENERAL MOTORS LLC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 120 DAYS
AND ALL-RELATED DATES; ALTERNATIVELY,
ADVANCE THE HEARING DATE FOR ITS MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTI FFS’
DEPOSITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF MITCHEL BRIM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
TO THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 3, 2019, at 8:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter
as the matter may be heard in Department 42 of the above-entitled court located at 10820 Justice
Roseville, CA 95678, Defendant, General Motors LLC (“GM”) will move this
Center Drive,
120
Court via ex parte application to continue the original trial date of September 3, 2019 for
days, or to a date as soon thereafter as this Court’s calendar may permit. Alternatively, GM seeks
ND
the hearing date for its Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Deposition and
an Order advancing
at Deposition. The Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Deposition is
Production of Documents
Oo
26, 2019. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, and Code of Civil
scheduled for September
oo
10 Procedure, sections 128 and 1005(b), which taken together provide authority for the Court to
set a hearing date, and
ll shorten the time for notice of motions, advance a hearing date, or specially
12 to control the proceedings in accordance with law and justice
the hearing date for its
13 GM is seeking ex parte relief to continue the trial date and advance
es that will result in
14 motion to compel plaintiff's deposition based on exigent circumstanc
deposition, concerning the alleged
15 irreparable harm. First, GM has been unable to take plaintiffs’
of her claims. After plaintiffs’
16 defects of the subject vehicle, factual allegations, and basis
17 deposition is taken, GM needs to take plaintiff's expert’s deposition.
Brim’’) who is taking care of
18 GM recently obtained new trial counsel, Mitchel Brim (““Mr.
requiring dialysis several times a week.
19 his father who suffers from a serious health condition
September 3, 2019. GM’s expert is
20 Moreover, Mr. Brim has trial in another matter on
On September 5, 2019, plaintiffs
21 unavailable on September 93" due to a calendar conflict.
be heard in which plaintiff is requesting
22 Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents will
owners of vehicles regarding alleged
23 thousands of documents concerning complaints of other
established are even nonconformities. It will
24 defects of the Subject Vehicle which have not been
such a request. Due to the outstanding
25 take GM at least 45 days to be able to comply with
close proximity to trial, GM respectfully
26 discovery issues, unforeseen circumstances, and the
trial for a period of at least 120 days, or
27 requests that this Court continue the September 23, 2019,
may permit. In addition, GM requests that the
28 to a date as soon thereafter as this Court’s calendar
2
ALL-RELATED DATES; ALTERNATIVELY,
ATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 120 DAYS AND
GENERAL MOTORS LLC'S EX PARTE APPLIC PLAINTI FFS’ DEPOSI TION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
TO COMPEL
ADVANCE THE HEARING DATE FOR ITS MOTION L BRIM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF MITCHE
Court continue all trial related deadline
s, including discovery deadlines, to
trail with the continued
trial date. GM is available to conduct
trial on January 13 & 20, 2020.
Ex Parte notice was provided to Plaintiffs
’ counsel on August 30, 2019 at approxim
ately
8:10 a.m. and 9:23 a.m. (Declaration
Bp
of Mitchel Brim, § 10, Exh. A). Plaintiffs counsel indicated
that she will oppose the application.
WH
(/d.)
ND
This Motion is based upon this Notice, the good cause shown for granting the relief
requested as set forth in the attached Memorand
um, the Declaration of Mitchel Brim (“Brim
COCO
Decl.”), as well as such evidence, oral and docum
entary, as may be presented at the hearing.
SoS
Dated: August 30, 2019 ERSKINE LAWGROUP,
10 PC ;
11
12
MITCHEIYBRI
13 ATTORXMEYS’FOR DEFENDANT
14 GENE OTORS LLC
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
GENERAL MOTORS LLC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE
TRIAL 120 DAYS AND ALL-RELATED
- DATES; : ALTER NATIVELY
ADVANCE THE HEARING DATE FOR ITS MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’
DEPOSITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF MITCHEL BRIM IN SUPPORT
THEREOF
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1 INTRODUCTION
NYO
Exigent circumstances dictate that trial be continued at least 120 days and/or GM’s Motion
WY
to Compel Plaintiff's Deposition scheduled for September 26, 2019, be advanced or irreparable
fF
harm will result if this application is not granted. GM has not been able to depose plaintiffs
An
concerning the alleged defects of the subject vehicle, the factual allegations, the basis of their
WB
claims and its defenses. (Brim Decl. § 7) As a result, GM is unable to prepare for trial, ascertain
NIN
the basis of plaintiffs’ claims, and/or establish a defense in this matter. A Motion to Compel
Oo
Plaintiffs’ Deposition has been filed with the earliest hearing date of September 26, 2019. (/d. at §
Co
8) Second, Mr. Brim is unable to conduct a three to five-day jury trial because he is taking care of
O&O
hl
his father who has a serious medical condition and is undergoing dialysis several times a week.
KF
(Id. at § 9) Moreover, Mr. Brim is scheduled for another trial on September 23, 2019. (/d. at 4 5)
NY
PF
Third, GM’s expert is unavailable for trial due to a calendar conflict. (/d. at § 6) Fourth, expert
YW
FF
discovery needs to be conducted once plaintiffs’ depositions are completed. (/d. at § 8). Fifth,
FSF
FF
Plaintiff has a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents set
nA
FF
for September 5, 2019. Plaintiff seeks thousands of documents related to complaints of other
DBD
FF
consumers concerning alleged defects without establishing that they are a nonconformity that will
NY
FF
take GM at least 45 days to be able to produce after reviewing for confidentiality and trade secret
OHA
FY
information. (/d.) Plaintiff needs to take GM’s Person Most Knowledgeable (““PMK’) deposition
OO
FY
as well who is unavailable until October 2019. (/d.)
TD
NO
This Court has broad powers to control the conduct of judicial proceedings in furtherance
NN
K
of justice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128 (a)(5)). Continuing the trial in the instant matter for 120 days
NYO
NN
would be in the furtherance of justice to allow GM the opportunity to complete the requisite
WD
NV
discovery and prepare this matter for trial.
Ff
NO
Il. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
WN
NH
Plaintiff filed suit against GM alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer
OO
NO
Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly) arising out of Plaintiff's purchase of a 2017 Chevrolet Traverse
NO
oN
VIN 1GNKRGKD4HJ113664 (“Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiff alleges “serious defects and
wo
4
GENERAL MOTORS LLC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 120 DAYS AND ALL-RELATED DATES; ALTERNATIVELY,
ADVANCE THE HEARING DATE FOR ITS MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF MITCHEL BRIM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
nonconformities” that allegedly substantially impair the use, value or safety of the Subject
Vehicle. Plaintiff seeks civil penalties pursuant to section 1794 (e) in the amount of two times his
actual damages. Through written discovery, GM discovered that plaintiff alleges defects
WW
pertaining to the Subject Vehicle’s steering, chassis and suspension. (Brim Decl., § 9). The
_
Subject Vehicle presented twice for a clicking noise in which different repairs were made which
include replacing gaskets, sway bar bushings, and a recall relating to the steering. (/d.) It has not
BD
presented to a GM authorized repair facility since July 14, 2018. Ud.)
NIN
On or about October 31, 2018, GM properly noticed Plaintiff's deposition to occur on
Oo
December 19, 2018. (/d. at § 7). Plaintiffs objected to their deposition. A Motion to Compel
Co
10 Plaintiffs Deposition has been filed with a hearing date of September 26, 2019. (Ud) After
11 plaintiffs’ depositions are completed, GM needs to conduct expert discovery including taking the
2 deposition of Plaintiffs’ expert. (/d. at 8).
13 GM respectfully requests that this Court continue trial so that said motion may be heard so
14 that it can conduct the imperative discovery to prepare for trial. Alternatively, GM respectfully
15 requests that the hearing date for its Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Deposition be advanced so that
16 it may be heard prior to trial.
17 GM will be severely prejudiced without the sought relief in order to conduct and obtain
18 crucial discovery to prepare for and have its counsel and expert available for trial.
19 il. ARGUMENT
20 A. IRREPERABLE HARM WILL RESULT IF GM’S' EX PARTE
21 APPLICATION IS NOT GRANTED
22 A showing of irreparable harm, immediate danger or any other statutory basis is required
23 for granting ex parte relief. California Rules of Court (“CRC”), rule 3.1202(c). The court has
24 broad discretion to determine whether good cause exists for granting a motion for a trial
29 continuance; its decision will be reversed on appeal only when there is a clear abuse of discretion
26 resulting in prejudice. (Forthmann v Boyer (2002) 97 CA4th 977; Eastwood v Froehlich (1976)
27 60 CA3d 523, 529). A court has broad powers to control the conduct of judicial proceedings in
28 furtherance of justice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128 (a)(5)). The Court may grant a continuance upon
5
GENERAL MOTORS LLC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 120 DAYS AND ALL-RELATED DATES; ALTERNATIVELY,
ADVANCE THE HEARING DATE FOR ITS MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF MITCHEL BRIM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
an affirmative showing of good cause which includes a significant unanticipated change in the
status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. CRC, rule 3.1332(c)(7).
Other factors include the length of the continuance requested, the prejudice that parties or
witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance, whether the interests of justice are best served
-
by the continuance, and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the
NN
ND
application. Pursuant to CRC, rule 3.1332, based on the facts, circumstances, good cause exists to
continue the trial in the instant matter. CRC, rule 3.1332, subsection (c)(6), articulates good
cause for a trial continuance in this precise instance: “A party's excused inability to obtain
Oe
essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.”
Co
10 GM has been unable to depose the plaintiffs to obtain sworn testimony pertaining to the
11 alleged defects, the basis of their lemon law claims, or facts that support its defenses. (Brim Decl.,
12 {| 7). GM’s counsel and expert witness are unavailable - the precise scenario contemplated by
13 California Rule of Court, rule 3.1332, subsection (c)(1) as constituting good cause to continue
14 trial. (Brim Decl. at {§] 5-6, 9) The record explicitly indicates that GM’s efforts were more than
15 diligent in attempting to obtain the aforementioned discovery. (/d. at §§ 7-8). The earliest
16 hearing date for GM’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Deposition is September 26, 2019. (/d. at §
17 8) After Plaintiffs’ deposition has been completed, expert discovery needs to be conducted to
18 ascertain the alleged defects and the basis for plaintiffs’ experts’ opinions. (/d.) On September 5,
19 2019, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production will be heard.
20 (/d.) Plaintiffs’ seek numerous documents concerning alleged defects of other consumer vehicles
21 that will require GM at least 45 days to produce if ordered to do so. (/d.)(emphasis added)
22 Moreover, GM’s PMK is unavailable until October 2019. (/d.)
23 B. THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF THE EX
24 PARTE APPLICATION
25 Judges have broad powers and responsibilities to determine what measures and procedures
26 are appropriate in varying circumstances. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 68607 [judge has responsibility
27 to manage litigation]; Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(5) [judge has power to control conduct of
28 judicial proceeding in furtherance of justice].) According to Code of Civil Procedure, section 128,
6
GENERAL MOTORS LLC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 120 DAYS AND ALL-RELATED DATES; ALTERNATIVELY,
ADVANCE THE HEARING DATE FOR ITS MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF MITCHEL BRIM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
subdivision (a)(8), every court shall have the power to “amend and control its process and orders
so as to make them conform to law and justice.” Code of Civil Procedure, section 187 provides
NO
“When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a
WO
Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the
Fe
exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this
nn
Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may
DB
appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code.” Government Code, section 68070 provides
NY
that: “Every court may make rules for its own government ... not inconsistent with law or with the
wea
rules adopted and prescribed by the Judicial Council.”
oOo
The interests of justice is served by continuing trial and all related dates 120 days and/pr
O&O
advancing the hearing date for GM’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Deposition. GM has no means
FF
Ree
to defend itself when plaintiff's counsel engages in improper gamesmanship and refuses to
NY
produce either plaintiff for deposition. GM is entitled to take plaintiffs’ deposition and engage in
WY
Rr
expert discovery. Moreover, GM’s counsel and its expert are unavailable on the date of trial.
Fe
Rr
Continuing the trial date, which has yet to be continued, would serve the ends of justice by
mr
DH
enabling GM to obtain imperative discovery so that it can prepare for trial.
IV. CONCLUSION
mmm
Oo NY
For the foregoing reasons, GM seeks an Order continuing the September 23, 2019, trial
Oo
date for a period of at least 120 days, or to a date as soon thereafter as the Court’s calendar may
DOD
NO
permit. Alternatively, GM seeks an Order advancing the hearing date for its Motion to Compel
KF&
RO
Plaintiffs’ Deposition and Production of Documents at Deposition.
NY
KN
Respectfully Submitted,
WY
KN
Dated: August 30, 2019 ERSKINE LAW/GROUP,
ek
KN
NW
NY
MITCHEL
NHN
NO
Attorneys fér Defendant
pO
GENE LORS LLC
Co
NO
7
GENERAL MOTORS LLC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 120 DAYS AND ALL-RELATED DATES; ALTERNATIVELY,
ADVANCE THE HEARING DATE FOR ITS MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF MITCHEL BRIM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
DECLARATION OF MITCHEL BRIM IN SUPPPORT OF DEFENDANT GENERAL
MOTORS LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE
WW
I, Mitchel Brim, declare as follows:
Ww
1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice before all courts in the State of California. I am
-
an attorney with the law firm Erskine Law Group, counsel to Defendant General Motors LLC
WN
(“GM LLC”). I recently joined the firm in April 2019 and have been assigned over 100 active
DW
litigation matters. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called to testify,
NN
could and would competently testify thereto.
Oo
2. This Declaration is submitted in support of GM LLC’s Ex Parte Application to Continue
Co
10 the Trial Date 120 days and all related dates to conform to the new trial date.
11 3. There is currently a five-day trial set to begin on September 23, 2019.
12 4. GM LLC has designated Steve Franklin as its expert witness in the present case.
13 5. On September 23, 2019, I am scheduled to be in trial in Jose Ramos Jr. v. General
14 Motors, LLC, LASC Case No. BC710024;
15 6. Mr. Franklin is an essential expert witness without which GM LLC cannot adequately
16 present its case before a jury. I have spoken with Mr. Franklin and he has advised me that he is
17 unavailable on September 23, 2019 due to a calendar conflict. If a continuance is not granted,
18 GM LLC will be greatly prejudiced and suffer irreparable harm in that it will be forced to undergo
19 trial without its essential expert witness.
20 7. On or about October 31, 2018, GM properly noticed Plaintiffs’ deposition to occur on
21 December 19, 2018. I have met and conferred with plaintiff's counsel beginning on July 8" who
22 has refused to provide available dates.
23 8. I filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Deposition with the earliest hearing date of
24 September 26, 2019. After plaintiffs’ deposition is taken, I will need to complete expert
25 discovery including taking plaintiffs’ expert’s deposition. Plaintiffs need to take GM’s Person
26 Most Knowledgeable deposition as well who is unavailable until October 2019. Plaintiff has a
27 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents set for September
28
GENERAL MOTORS LLC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 120 DAYS AND ALL-RELATED DATES; ALTERNATIVELY,
ADVANCE THE HEARING DATE FOR ITS MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF MITCHEL BRIM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
5, 2019. Plaintiff seeks numerous, if not thousands of documents, related to complaints of other
consumers concerning alleged defects without establishing that they are a nonconformity that will
take GM at least 45 days to be able to produce. If granted, I will have to sort through all of the
Lo
documents to ascertain confidentiality and trade secret information prior to said production.
9. My father has a serious medical condition and is undergoing dialysis multiple times a
week. I am his only caretaker and will not be able to conduct a three to five-day jury trial in this
ND
matter on September 23. Through written discovery, GM LLC discovered that plaintiff alleges
defects pertaining to the Subject Vehicle’s steering, chassis and suspension. The Subject Vehicle
Oo
presented twice for a clicking noise in which different repairs were made which include replacing
Co
10 gaskets, sway bar bushings, and a recall relating to the steering. Based on the warranty history,
11 the Subject Vehicle has not presented to a GM authorized repair facility since July 14, 2018 in
12 which a seat buckle was replaced.
13 10. On August 30, 2019, at approximately 8:10 a.m., I emailed Plaintiff's counsel and
14 informed her of the time, date and location of the filing of an Ex Parte Application to Continue
15 Trial and all Related Dates, alternatively have the hearing for its Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’
16 Deposition advanced. At approximately 9:23 a.m., I advised plaintiff's counsel of the correct
17 time for the hearing for the Ex Parte Application. A true and correct copy of both emails are
18 attached hereto as Exhibit A. I also called and informed plaintiff's counsel of the aforementioned
19 and to ascertain if they were opposing. Plaintiff's counsel emailed me indicating that she intends
20 to oppose the Motion.
21 //
22 ///
23 //
24 //
25 /I/
26 /II
27 M1
28
GENERAL MOTORS LLC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 120 DAYS AND ALL-RELATED DATES; ALTERNATIVELY,
ADVANCE THE HEARING DATE FOR ITS MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF MITCHEL BRIM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
11. GM LLC is respectfully requesting that this Court continue the trial date in the present
matter 120 days from the date at which it is currently set so that GM can conduct the imperative
WV
discovery to prepare for and have its expert available to testify at trial. GM is available on
WwW
January 13 & 20, 2020. I attempted to obtain plaintiff's counsel’s availability for trial by
ee
emailing and leaving plaintiff's counsel Nancy Zhang a message.
NN
I declare under the penalty of perjury according to the laws in the State of California that
DO
NIN
the foregoing is true and correct.
Oo
DATED: August 30, 2019
Co
10
11
12
13 Mitchel Brim
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GENERAL MOTORS LLC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 120 DAYS AND ALL-RELATED DATES; ALTERNATIVELY,
ADVANCE THE HEARING DATE FOR ITS MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF MITCHEL BRIM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
EXHIBIT A
From: Mitchel Brim
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 8:10 AM
To: Nancy Zhang, Esq.; Catalina Yang
Ce: Stanley Chan; Jonathan Shugart
Subject: RE: Leyva v. GM LLC - Ex Parte Notice to Continue Trial 120 Days and All Related Dates;
Alternatively Shorten Time/Advance Hearing Date for Its Motion to Compe! Plaintiffs' Deposition
Hi Nancy,
Court located on 10820 Justice Center Drive, Roseville, CA 95678, General Motors LLC (“GM LLC”) will
move via an ex parte application for an Order to Continue Trial 120 Days and all Related
Dates. Alternatively, GM LLC seeks to shorten time/advance hearing date for its Motion to Compel
Plaintiffs’ Deposition.
Piease advise if you will be opposing and provide available trial dates. Thank you.
Best,
Mitchel Brim, Esq.
& ERSKINELAW
Erskine Law Group
mbrim kinelaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying
attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any
reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly
prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the
sender by return e-mail, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Nothing in this message is
intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message.
From: Mitchel Brim
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 9:22 AM
To: Nancy Zhang, Esq.; Catalina Yang
Ce: Stanley Chan; Jonathan Shugart
Subject: RE: Leyva v. GM LLC - Ex Parte Notice to Continue Trial 120 Days; Alternatively Shorten Time to
Hear Its Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Deposition
Hi Nancy,
Please be advised that the ex parte application will be heard at 8:00 a.m. Thank you.
Best,
Mitchel Brim, Esq.
SF pre shin
38
FP gb ty,
aes FOS
Tel - 949-777-6032 (Main)
Fax - 714-844-9035
mbrim@erskinelaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying
attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. [f any
reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly
prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the
sender by return e-mail, and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Nothing in this message is
intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message.
From: Mitchel Brim
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 8:04:16 AM
Subject: Leyva v. GM LLC - Ex Parte Notice to Continue Trial 120 Days; Alternatively Shorten Time to
Hear Its Motion to Compe! Plaintiffs' Deposition
Hi Nancy,
Court located on 10820 Justice Center Drive, Roseville, CA 95678, General Motors LLC (“GM LLC”) will
move via an ex parte application for an Order to Continue Trial 120 Days and all Related
Dates. Alternatively, GM LLC seeks to shorten time to have its Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Deposition
heard.
Please advise if you will be opposing and provide available trial dates. Thank you.
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the County of Orange and my business address is 3995 E. La Palma
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807. I am over the age of 18 years and I am not a party to this action. I
am readily familiar with the practices of ERSKINE LAW GROUP for the collection and
processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Such
correspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service the same day in the ordinary
course of business.
On August 30, 2019, I served the foregoing document(s), bearing the title(s):
DD
GENERAL MOTORS LLC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 120 DAYS
NN
AND ALL-RELATED DATES; ALTERNATIVELY, ADVANCE THE HEARING DATE FOR ITS
MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
Oe
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF MITCHEL BRIM IN SUPPORT
THEREOF
So
10 on the interested parties in the action as follows:
[X] by placing [ ] the original [X] a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope
11 addressed as follows:
12 CONSUMER LAW EXPERTS, PC
5757 W. Century Blvd., Suite 500
13 Los Angeles, CA 90045
14 [X] | (BY MAIL SERVICE) I placed such envelopes for collection and to be mailed on this
date following ordinary business practices.
15
[ ] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused to be delivered such envelope by hand to the
16 office of the addressee.
17 [ ] (BY FACSIMILE) The document stated herein was transmitted by facsimile transmission
and the transmission was reported as complete and without error. A transmission report was
18 properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine and a copy of said transmission report is
attached to the original proof of service indicating the time of transmission.
19
(BY NEXT DAY DELIVERY) I caused to be delivered such envelope by hand to the
20 office of the addressee.
21 [X] (BY E-MAIL) I served the above-mentioned document via electronic transmission per
agreement of the parties.
22
[X] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
23 foregoing is true and correct.
24 [ ] (Federal) I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by a member of the Bar
of this Court, at whose direction this service is made.
2
Executed on August 30, 2019, at Anaheim, CA.
26
27 ai
Signed:
Stanley Chan
28
GENERAL MOTORS LLC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 120 DAYS AND ALL-RELATED DATES; ALTERNATIVELY,
ADVANCE THE HEARING DATE FOR ITS MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF MITCHEL BRIM IN SUPPORT THEREOF