Preview
PAUL A. WARNER, ESQ. (SBN 112168)
| 1624 Santa Clara Drive, Suite 220 . FILED
|] Roseville, CA 95661 dupentt Court of California .
County of Placer
Telephone: (916) 996-3100:
Facsimile: (916) 789-7557 MAR 01 2018
, Jake Chatters
‘Attomeys for Plaintiff Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc. Executive Officer. & Clerk
By K, ZAtaggza, Deputy
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
10
| VOYAGER RESTAURANT OROUF, INe., a Case No. S-CV-0035599
110 California corporation
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN
12
Plaintiff, ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RES :
v. - OPEN DISCOVERY
13)
Ex Parte Hearing 2,
14 SONORA GASOLINE CORPORATION, a Date: March 1, 2018
California corporation formerly known as. | Time: 8:00 a.m.
15
SONORA PETROLEUM, INC., a California | Dept.: 42
16 corporation, GURRAJ SINGH GREWAL,
SABAL FINANCIAL GROUP LP, a Trial Date: March 19,2018
17 Delaware limited partnership; 2012-SIP-1
VENTURE LLC, a Delaware limited liability — “UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE”
18
company as successor to TENNESSEE
19 ‘COMMERCE BANK, a Tennessee State
| chartered bank, ROSEVILLE PETROLEUM,
20 INC., a California corporation, NIRMAL
SINGH, and DOES ONE through TWENTY,
22
| inclusive,
22
Defendants.
23
- 24
25 Plaintiff Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc. (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF”) hereby applies for
26 an order to continue the pending trial date and to re-open discovery.
27
28°
‘dh -. EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RE-OPEN DISCOVERY
e eo
1
i
oa o
In accordance with CRC 3.1202, Defendant is informed and believes that the name, address and
telephone number of Defendants’ Sonora Gasoline Corporation and Gurraj Singh Grewal
representative was as follows: Jack Burstein, SMITH & BURSTEIN, 1730 Sonoma Blvd.,
1
j Vallejo, CA 94590-6085, (707) 643-8405; Defendants’ Roseville Petroleum, Inc., and Nirmal
Singh: Matthew C. Bradford / Marc B. Robinson, ROBINSON BRADFORD LLP, 3439
Brookside Road, Suite 210, Stockton, CA 95219, 209-954-2001.
Notification of this hearing was made by email on February 28, 2018 at approximately
|) 9:45 am, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit A.
10
11 This Application is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the
12 Declaration of Paul Warner, filed herewith; the entire record and files in this case; and any other
13
and further matter that the Court may consider, require or permit at the hearing. J declare under
14
penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
15
Dated: 1Marchi8
16
i?
q.
18 tif
Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RE-OPEN DISCOVERY
i
i
© ©
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Sonora owned the real property located at 2998 Foothills Blvd., Roseville, Ca 95747.
On or about August 31, 2011, Voyager entered a lease (the “Lease”) regarding the
restaurant space on the Property Sonora.
Voyager regularly communicated in writing to Grewal/Sonora, as landlord, from the lease
‘signing and throughout all times relevant to this action, that the tenant was committed:to the
Lease and awaited the Landlord’s performance to initiate operations. The Landlord explained in
writing that it was having difficulty performing and re-assured Voyager that it was committed to
10
implementing the Lease. When Voyager requested the Landlord’s performance, the Landlord
TL
agreed to cooperate and, as part of a reaffirmation of the Lease, tendered the posséssion of space
12
to tenant in anticipation of funding. The Landlord continued to advise the tenant in writing that
13
14 ‘its funding was imminent and requested the tenant’s patience. Part of the ongoing negotiations to
15 fulfill the Landlord’s commitment to implementing the os was to record a Memorandum of
16
Lease. The Landlord abated the rent until tenant improvement funding vas available:
17
On July 21, 2014, Voyager and Grewal, on behalf of Sonora, executed a Memorandum of
18
Lease, which was recorded on September 19, 2014 in Placer County's Recorder's Office as
19
20 document number 2014-00655 15-00 (the "Memorandum").
21 _ On July 21, 2014, Voyager and Grewal, on behalf of Sonora, executed a Declaration of
22
Commencement of Lease, which was recorded on September 19, 2014.
23
Nonetheless, Defendants filed to provide the funds referred to in sections 10 and 11 of
24
25
the Lease. Voyager gave several notices, over an extended period, to Defendants in accordance
26 with. the provisions referenced in Section 29, of the Lease but Defendants failed to perform!
27
Voyager filed its complaint for breach of the terms of the lease in accordance with Section 36 of
28
the Lease on December 10, 2014.
: “EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RE-OPEN DISCOVERY
© Oo
On or about August 5, 2016, Parmar received title to the Premises upon close of escrow
with Sonora through an assignment from Chandi Group USA, Inc.
ARGUMENT
‘A. The Court Should Exercise Discretion in Granting a Continuance.
i. A Continuance is Necessary in Consideration of the Unexpected Death of Defense
The power to postpone for good cause the time of a hearing or trial is an integral part of a
court's Snisiietion to hear and determine an action or proceeding [ Curtis v. Underwood (1894)
10
101 Cal. 661, 669, 36 P. 110]. This power is independent from the rules of court which set out
ai
procedures for its exercise [see Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1332(b)] and statutory and case law
12
which describe situations where exercise may be appropriate [see Code Civ. Proc. $§ 594a-596].
13
Trial courts may be reversed for refusing to grant a continuance if their actions, however
14
laudable as an effort to control the calendar, deny the party an opportunity to present his or her
15
pase fairly and fully [ Hays v. Viscome (1953) 122 Cal. App. 2d 135, 140, 264 P.2d 173].
16. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause
a7 requiring the continuance, Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: :
(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or
18
other excusable circumstances;
19
(2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable
20 circumstances;
21 (3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable
circumstances; .
22
(4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that
23
the substitution is required in the interests of justice; ,
24 (5) The addition of a new party if:
25 (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare
for trial; or
26
(B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and
27
prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case;
28
- . “EX PARTE.APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RE-OPEN DISCOVERY
-'4
wnntiis sg be
© ©
(6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other
material evidence despite diligent efforts; or
“(DA significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which
the case is not ready for trial.
In this case, as set forth ‘in the Declaration of Paul Warner, filed herewith and
incorporated herein by this reference, counsel for Defendants Sonora Gasoline Corporation and
Gurraj Grewal, a sole practitioner, suddenly died on the morning of January 26, 2018. The last
contact with his office staff was on February 16, 2018, seeking an extension of time to respond
10 to a cross-complaint in a related case while they tried to find replacement counsel. Voyager has
Ww delayed seeking a postponement until this time hoping that replacement counsel swontted be found
12
and out of respect for Mr. Burstein’s daughter who is struggling with the aftermath of his death.
13
2.. Plaintiff will be prejudiced without a continuance.
14
IS
In ruling on a motion of application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts
16 and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These Hay include:
M7
(1) The proximity of the trial date;
18
(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due
19
to any party;
20
21 (3) The length of the continuance requested;
22 (4) The availability of alternative — to address the problem that gave rise to the
23
motion or application for a continuance;
24
(5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;
25
(6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and
26
|
27 whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;
28 (7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;
~” BX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RE-OPEN DISCOVERY
© ©
(8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;
(9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;
(10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the
matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and
(11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the mation or
application. |
The trial cannot proceed without representation for defendants Sonora Gasoline
Corporation and Gurraj Grewal. =
10
Counsel for Defendants Roseville and Grewal does not object to a continuance but explained
a1
that he has a full calendar for rescheduling should the Court grant Plaintiff's application.
12
3
B. The Court Should Exercise Discretion and Re-open Discovery
14 Prior to his demise, Mr. Burstein had been arranging to have his client presented for
15
deposition and to provide documents responsive to discovery. Similarly, counsel for Defendants! ©
16 |}
Roseville Petroleum, Inc. and Nirmal Singh, declined to offer his clients for deposition scheduled
17
for January 30 or 31, 2018, when apprised of the demise of Mr. Burstein.
ig
19 Continuance is available to procure additional material evidence or testimony of absent,
20 material witness if party has acted with diligence in preparing evidence for trial. Larson v.
21
Solbakken (i 963) 221 Cal. App. 2d 410, 428-430, 34 Cal. Rptr. 450.
22
On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, to
23
have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to re-open discovery
24
25 after a new trial date has been set.
26 In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court takes into consideration
27
any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following:
28
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RE-OPEN DISCOVERY
= 6
O °
() The necessity and the reasons for the discovery.
(2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of al
discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not complete or that the
discovery motion was not heard earlier.
(3). Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will
prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial
calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party.
(4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date
10
presently set, for the trial of the action. Cal. C.C.P. § 2024.050(b).
in
“Good cause” may be found to justify discovery where specific facts show that the discovery|
42
13 is necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. Assodinced Brewers
14 Distributing Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 65 Cal. 2d 583, 55 Cal. Rptr. m7
15
409 P-2d 332 (1967). ,
16
Counsel for Defendants Roseville and Grewal agreed to cooperate regarding discovery!
417
should the Court grant Plaintiffs application.
18
19
CG. Unless the Trial Is Postponed Plaintiff Will Suffer Irreparable Harm
"20
Because of the unforeseen demise of Mr. Borsiein. which precluded
21-7]
‘completion of the depositions of the primary defendants, Grewal and Singh, Plaintiff
22
would be unduly harmed if the trial were not postponed but proceeded on March 19, 2018,
23
and discovery not completed. Judicial economy and the trial of the issues on the merits
24
‘would be served by continuing the trial for a short period to accommodate Defendants
25
replacement of counsel and the completion of discovery.
26 CONCLUSION
27
The granting or denial of a motion to continue the trial rests within the court’s sound|
28
discretion. For each of the foregoing reasons it is respectfully requested that this Court order the
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RE-OPEN DISCOVERY ~
-7
“
©
rontinuance of the trial from March 19, 2018, taking the Mandatory Settlement Conference and
Civil Trial Conferences off calendar, and that discovery be re-opened in accordance with new trial
date.
Dated: 1Mar18 Paul'A. Warner, Es
Attorney for Plainti
Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc. _
10
il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RE-OPEN DISCOVERY
8
10
14
12
13
4
i5
16
17
18°
19
20
21°
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT A
Oo! O
Paul Warner
San ORR to ti
From: : Paul Warner
Sent. : Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:44 AM
STOR ee ged . Matthew Bradford
Subject: : i -» ” @x parte application to continue trial
“twill be appearing in Placer County Superior Court Department; 42 at 8 AM on Thursday. March 1st in the matter of
Voyager versus Sonora. SCV 0035599 requesting in order to continue the trial and reopen discovery. ©
©
Paul. Warner
RE RES es meer Thiel aT a oa aa ana
From: Paul Warner
Sent: f Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:52 AM
To: ‘ ‘ smithandburstein@comcast net
Subject: PAB ex parte application to continue trial
| willbe appearing in Placér County Superior Court Department, 42 at 8 AM on Thursday. March. 1st in the matter of
Voyager versus Sonora. SCV 0035599 requesting in order to continue the trial and reopen discovery.
Preview
PAUL A. WARNER, ESQ. (SBN 112168) | 1624 Santa Clara Drive, Suite 220 . FILED |] Roseville, CA 95661 dupentt Court of California . County of Placer Telephone: (916) 996-3100: Facsimile: (916) 789-7557 MAR 01 2018 , Jake Chatters ‘Attomeys for Plaintiff Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc. Executive Officer. & Clerk By K, ZAtaggza, Deputy IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER 10 | VOYAGER RESTAURANT OROUF, INe., a Case No. S-CV-0035599 110 California corporation EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RES : v. - OPEN DISCOVERY 13) Ex Parte Hearing 2, 14 SONORA GASOLINE CORPORATION, a Date: March 1, 2018 California corporation formerly known as. | Time: 8:00 a.m. 15 SONORA PETROLEUM, INC., a California | Dept.: 42 16 corporation, GURRAJ SINGH GREWAL, SABAL FINANCIAL GROUP LP, a Trial Date: March 19,2018 17 Delaware limited partnership; 2012-SIP-1 VENTURE LLC, a Delaware limited liability — “UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE” 18 company as successor to TENNESSEE 19 ‘COMMERCE BANK, a Tennessee State | chartered bank, ROSEVILLE PETROLEUM, 20 INC., a California corporation, NIRMAL SINGH, and DOES ONE through TWENTY, 22 | inclusive, 22 Defendants. 23 - 24 25 Plaintiff Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc. (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF”) hereby applies for 26 an order to continue the pending trial date and to re-open discovery. 27 28° ‘dh -. EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RE-OPEN DISCOVERY e eo 1 i oa o In accordance with CRC 3.1202, Defendant is informed and believes that the name, address and telephone number of Defendants’ Sonora Gasoline Corporation and Gurraj Singh Grewal representative was as follows: Jack Burstein, SMITH & BURSTEIN, 1730 Sonoma Blvd., 1 j Vallejo, CA 94590-6085, (707) 643-8405; Defendants’ Roseville Petroleum, Inc., and Nirmal Singh: Matthew C. Bradford / Marc B. Robinson, ROBINSON BRADFORD LLP, 3439 Brookside Road, Suite 210, Stockton, CA 95219, 209-954-2001. Notification of this hearing was made by email on February 28, 2018 at approximately |) 9:45 am, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit A. 10 11 This Application is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the 12 Declaration of Paul Warner, filed herewith; the entire record and files in this case; and any other 13 and further matter that the Court may consider, require or permit at the hearing. J declare under 14 penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 15 Dated: 1Marchi8 16 i? q. 18 tif Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RE-OPEN DISCOVERY i i © © STATEMENT OF FACTS Sonora owned the real property located at 2998 Foothills Blvd., Roseville, Ca 95747. On or about August 31, 2011, Voyager entered a lease (the “Lease”) regarding the restaurant space on the Property Sonora. Voyager regularly communicated in writing to Grewal/Sonora, as landlord, from the lease ‘signing and throughout all times relevant to this action, that the tenant was committed:to the Lease and awaited the Landlord’s performance to initiate operations. The Landlord explained in writing that it was having difficulty performing and re-assured Voyager that it was committed to 10 implementing the Lease. When Voyager requested the Landlord’s performance, the Landlord TL agreed to cooperate and, as part of a reaffirmation of the Lease, tendered the posséssion of space 12 to tenant in anticipation of funding. The Landlord continued to advise the tenant in writing that 13 14 ‘its funding was imminent and requested the tenant’s patience. Part of the ongoing negotiations to 15 fulfill the Landlord’s commitment to implementing the os was to record a Memorandum of 16 Lease. The Landlord abated the rent until tenant improvement funding vas available: 17 On July 21, 2014, Voyager and Grewal, on behalf of Sonora, executed a Memorandum of 18 Lease, which was recorded on September 19, 2014 in Placer County's Recorder's Office as 19 20 document number 2014-00655 15-00 (the "Memorandum"). 21 _ On July 21, 2014, Voyager and Grewal, on behalf of Sonora, executed a Declaration of 22 Commencement of Lease, which was recorded on September 19, 2014. 23 Nonetheless, Defendants filed to provide the funds referred to in sections 10 and 11 of 24 25 the Lease. Voyager gave several notices, over an extended period, to Defendants in accordance 26 with. the provisions referenced in Section 29, of the Lease but Defendants failed to perform! 27 Voyager filed its complaint for breach of the terms of the lease in accordance with Section 36 of 28 the Lease on December 10, 2014. : “EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RE-OPEN DISCOVERY © Oo On or about August 5, 2016, Parmar received title to the Premises upon close of escrow with Sonora through an assignment from Chandi Group USA, Inc. ARGUMENT ‘A. The Court Should Exercise Discretion in Granting a Continuance. i. A Continuance is Necessary in Consideration of the Unexpected Death of Defense The power to postpone for good cause the time of a hearing or trial is an integral part of a court's Snisiietion to hear and determine an action or proceeding [ Curtis v. Underwood (1894) 10 101 Cal. 661, 669, 36 P. 110]. This power is independent from the rules of court which set out ai procedures for its exercise [see Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1332(b)] and statutory and case law 12 which describe situations where exercise may be appropriate [see Code Civ. Proc. $§ 594a-596]. 13 Trial courts may be reversed for refusing to grant a continuance if their actions, however 14 laudable as an effort to control the calendar, deny the party an opportunity to present his or her 15 pase fairly and fully [ Hays v. Viscome (1953) 122 Cal. App. 2d 135, 140, 264 P.2d 173]. 16. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause a7 requiring the continuance, Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: : (1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or 18 other excusable circumstances; 19 (2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable 20 circumstances; 21 (3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; . 22 (4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that 23 the substitution is required in the interests of justice; , 24 (5) The addition of a new party if: 25 (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or 26 (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and 27 prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case; 28 - . “EX PARTE.APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RE-OPEN DISCOVERY -'4 wnntiis sg be © © (6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or “(DA significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. In this case, as set forth ‘in the Declaration of Paul Warner, filed herewith and incorporated herein by this reference, counsel for Defendants Sonora Gasoline Corporation and Gurraj Grewal, a sole practitioner, suddenly died on the morning of January 26, 2018. The last contact with his office staff was on February 16, 2018, seeking an extension of time to respond 10 to a cross-complaint in a related case while they tried to find replacement counsel. Voyager has Ww delayed seeking a postponement until this time hoping that replacement counsel swontted be found 12 and out of respect for Mr. Burstein’s daughter who is struggling with the aftermath of his death. 13 2.. Plaintiff will be prejudiced without a continuance. 14 IS In ruling on a motion of application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts 16 and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These Hay include: M7 (1) The proximity of the trial date; 18 (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due 19 to any party; 20 21 (3) The length of the continuance requested; 22 (4) The availability of alternative — to address the problem that gave rise to the 23 motion or application for a continuance; 24 (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; 25 (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and 26 | 27 whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; 28 (7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; ~” BX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RE-OPEN DISCOVERY © © (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the mation or application. | The trial cannot proceed without representation for defendants Sonora Gasoline Corporation and Gurraj Grewal. = 10 Counsel for Defendants Roseville and Grewal does not object to a continuance but explained a1 that he has a full calendar for rescheduling should the Court grant Plaintiff's application. 12 3 B. The Court Should Exercise Discretion and Re-open Discovery 14 Prior to his demise, Mr. Burstein had been arranging to have his client presented for 15 deposition and to provide documents responsive to discovery. Similarly, counsel for Defendants! © 16 |} Roseville Petroleum, Inc. and Nirmal Singh, declined to offer his clients for deposition scheduled 17 for January 30 or 31, 2018, when apprised of the demise of Mr. Burstein. ig 19 Continuance is available to procure additional material evidence or testimony of absent, 20 material witness if party has acted with diligence in preparing evidence for trial. Larson v. 21 Solbakken (i 963) 221 Cal. App. 2d 410, 428-430, 34 Cal. Rptr. 450. 22 On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, to 23 have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to re-open discovery 24 25 after a new trial date has been set. 26 In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court takes into consideration 27 any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following: 28 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RE-OPEN DISCOVERY = 6 O ° () The necessity and the reasons for the discovery. (2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of al discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not complete or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier. (3). Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party. (4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date 10 presently set, for the trial of the action. Cal. C.C.P. § 2024.050(b). in “Good cause” may be found to justify discovery where specific facts show that the discovery| 42 13 is necessary for effective trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial. Assodinced Brewers 14 Distributing Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 65 Cal. 2d 583, 55 Cal. Rptr. m7 15 409 P-2d 332 (1967). , 16 Counsel for Defendants Roseville and Grewal agreed to cooperate regarding discovery! 417 should the Court grant Plaintiffs application. 18 19 CG. Unless the Trial Is Postponed Plaintiff Will Suffer Irreparable Harm "20 Because of the unforeseen demise of Mr. Borsiein. which precluded 21-7] ‘completion of the depositions of the primary defendants, Grewal and Singh, Plaintiff 22 would be unduly harmed if the trial were not postponed but proceeded on March 19, 2018, 23 and discovery not completed. Judicial economy and the trial of the issues on the merits 24 ‘would be served by continuing the trial for a short period to accommodate Defendants 25 replacement of counsel and the completion of discovery. 26 CONCLUSION 27 The granting or denial of a motion to continue the trial rests within the court’s sound| 28 discretion. For each of the foregoing reasons it is respectfully requested that this Court order the EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RE-OPEN DISCOVERY ~ -7 “ © rontinuance of the trial from March 19, 2018, taking the Mandatory Settlement Conference and Civil Trial Conferences off calendar, and that discovery be re-opened in accordance with new trial date. Dated: 1Mar18 Paul'A. Warner, Es Attorney for Plainti Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc. _ 10 il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RE-OPEN DISCOVERY 8 10 14 12 13 4 i5 16 17 18° 19 20 21° 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT A Oo! O Paul Warner San ORR to ti From: : Paul Warner Sent. : Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:44 AM STOR ee ged . Matthew Bradford Subject: : i -» ” @x parte application to continue trial “twill be appearing in Placer County Superior Court Department; 42 at 8 AM on Thursday. March 1st in the matter of Voyager versus Sonora. SCV 0035599 requesting in order to continue the trial and reopen discovery. © © Paul. Warner RE RES es meer Thiel aT a oa aa ana From: Paul Warner Sent: f Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:52 AM To: ‘ ‘ smithandburstein@comcast net Subject: PAB ex parte application to continue trial | willbe appearing in Placér County Superior Court Department, 42 at 8 AM on Thursday. March. 1st in the matter of Voyager versus Sonora. SCV 0035599 requesting in order to continue the trial and reopen discovery.