Preview
Matthew C. Bradford, Esq. (196798)
Nathan M. Robinson, Esq. (305611)
ROBINSON BRADFORD LLP
3439 Brookside Road, Suite 212 FILED
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIPORMIA
Ww
Stockton, CA 95219 COUNTY MF PH Ae
Telephone: (209) 954-9001
Bf
Facsimile: (209) 954-9091 AUG 16 2018
NN
JAKE CHATTERS
Attorneys for Defendants, EXECUTIVE OFFICER & CLERK
DBD
By: C. Henderson, Deputy
Roseville Petroleum, Inc., Nirmal Singh
NY
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
CO
COUNTY OF PLACER
Oo
(UNLIMITED CIVIL)
10
11 VOYAGER RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., a CASE NO.: S-CV-0035599
California corporation
12 DEFENDANT NIRMAL SINGH’S EX
Plaintiff, PARTE APPLICATION TO
13
CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE;
14 VS. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT;
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C.
15 SONORA GASOLINE CORPORATION, a BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER
California corporation formerly known as
16 SONORA PETROLEUM, INC., a California Date: August 16, 2018
corporation, GURRAJ SINGH GREWAL, Time: 8:00 A.M.
17
SABAL FINANCIAL GROUP LP, a Dept.: 42
18 Delaware limited partnership; 2012-SIP-1 Judge:
VENTURE LLC, A Delaware limited
19 liability company as successor to Tennessee
State Charted Bank, ROSEVILLE
20 PETROLEUM, INC., a California
corporation, NIRMAL SINGH, and DOES
21
ONE through TWENTY, inclusive
22
Defendants.
ae TO EACH PARTY AND TO THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY:
24
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT on August 16, 2018 at 8:00 am., in
25
Department 42 of the Court located at 10820 Justice Center Drive, Roseville, California 95678,
26
Defendant Nirmal Singh, through his counsel, will apply ex parte for an order to Continue the Trial
27
Date by at least 60 days from the current trial date of August 27, 2018. This application is made in
28
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT;
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER
accordance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1200 et seq. The basis for the motion to continue
the trial date is that Defendant Nirmal Singh cannot attend the trial as currently scheduled because
he has had complications with a recent medical procedure. Furthermore, Mr. Singh had this
procedure performed outside of the country and Mr. Singh is still out of the country due to these
medical complications.
Previously, on March 8, 2018 this Court granted Plaintiffs motion to continue the trial date
ND
from March 19, 2018 to August 27, 2018 and to re-open discovery. No other party has made any
other ex parte application to continue the trial date.
CO
This ex parte relief sought by Plaintiff is based upon this application, the attached
So
10 memorandum in support, the attached declaration of Matthew C. Bradford, the files and records in
11 this action, and any further evidence or argument that the Court may properly receive at or before
12 the hearing.
13 Mr. Bradford provided written notice of this ex parte application, its date, time and location
14 and the relief requested to Plaintiff and Defendants Gurraj Singh Grewal, Sonora Petroleum Inc.,
15 and Sonora Gasoline Corporation on August 15, 2018. To date, neither Plaintiff's nor Defendants
16 Gurraj Singh Grewal, Sonora Petroleum, Inc., and/or Sonora Gasoline Corporation have responded
17 to Mr. Bradford’s written notice. Defendant does not know whether Plaintiff and/or Defendants
18 Gurraj Singh Grewal, Sonora Petroleum, Inc., and Sonora Gasoline Corporation will appear to
19 oppose the application. The declaration attached hereto satisfies the requirements of California
20 Rules of Court Rule 3.1204.
Zi
22
23 DATED: August 15, 2018 ROBINSON BRADFORD LLP
24
Nathan M. Robinson, Esq.
25 Attorney for Defendant, Roseville Petroleum, Inc.,
Nirmal Singh
26
27
28 2
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT;
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION
TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE
I. Introduction
Plaintiff's allegations stem from a contractual dispute between Plaintiff and defendants
Sonora Gasoline Corporation (“SGC”) and/or Sonora Petroleum, Inc. (“SPI”), not Defendants
Roseville Petroleum, Inc. (“RPI”) and Nirmal Singh (“Mr. Singh”). In Plaintiffs Third Amended
Complaint (“TAC”), Plaintiff asserts the legal theories of conspiracy and alter ego in order to
bring RPI and Mr. Singh into the case. The TAC also fails to allege facts that explain how
Defendants RPI and Mr. Singh negligently or intentionally interfered with the contract between
10
11 Plaintiff and SGC/SPI. Plaintiff fails to allege any independently tortious conduct by either RPI
12 or Mr. Singh which interfered with Plaintiffs lease and does not allege any specific harm or
13 damages incurred that Defendants have caused that is separate and distinct from the actions of the
14 other named Defendants. In short, RPI and Mr. Singh are not proper parties to this lawsuit.
15
Despite the misplaced allegations, RPI and Mr. Singh have diligently defended against
16
Plaintiff's claims and accordingly prepared for trial which is set to begin August 27, 2018.
17
However, the trial needs to be continued because Mr. Singh has had complications with a recent
18
19 laparoscopic abdominal surgery performed in India and he is under doctors’ orders to remain on
20 bed rest and stay near the hospital in India for at least the next four weeks. If trial is not
21 continued, Defendant will be substantially prejudiced because he will be unable to attend the trial.
22 This is the second time that any party has requested to continue the trial date. On March
23
8, 2018 this Court granted Plaintiff's motion to continue the trial date from March 19, 2018 to
24
August 27, 2018 and to re-open discovers No other party has previously sought ex parte relief to
25
continue the trial date. Defendant is not aware of any potential prejudice that would ensue from
26
27 continuing the trial date. Therefore, there is good cause to continue the trial date because one of
28 3
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT;
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER
the Defendants health prevents him from attending the trial. Based on the foregoing, the
Defendant applies to this Court for a two-month continuance of the trial date, without re-opening
discovery.
II. Factual Background
Voyager alleges in the TAC that it entered into a contract with SPI (now alleged to be
SGC) in order to build a Sonic Restaurant on the real property located at 2998 Foothills
Boulevard, Roseville, CA 95661 (“Real Property”). TAC § 14. Plaintiff attached said contract to
the TAC. See Exh. A to TAC. In the contract, SGC agreed to pay to build the Sonic. TAC 4 14;
10 See Exh. A to TAC. Voyager then alleges that SGC failed to pay Voyager the agreed upon
11 amount to build the Sonic. TAC § 19.
12 Plaintiff then alleges that Defendants RPI and Mr. Singh have negligently and
13 alternatively intentionally asserted control of the Real Property and interfered with Plaintiff's
14 lease and quiet enjoyment thereof to the detriment and damage to Plaintiff. TAC 4§ 24 - 29.
15 Voyager’s TAC does not provide any facts that show a relationship or even any communications
16 between Voyager and RPI or Mr. Singh. Voyager’s TAC does not show any facts that there is a
17 separate relationship between RPI/Mr. Singh and the other named defendants, beside from being
18 a current tenant of the real property at issue. Voyager does not provide any facts as to when or
19 how the RPI tenancy relates to Voyager’s claims.
20
lil. Legal Discussion
21
ae A. The Discretionary Authority of This Court Favors Granting Defendant’s Ex Parte
Motion to Continue Trial Based on Good Cause
23
1. An Order to Continue Trial May Be Made Via Ex Parte Application
24
Defendant respectfully requests an order from the Court pursuant to California Rules of
25
26 Court, Rule 3.1332, continuing the trial in this matter for at least two months, or as soon
27 thereafter as is convenient for the Court. Rule 3.1332 (b) states:
28 4
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT;
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER
A party seeking a continuance of the date of trial, whether contested or uncontested or
stipulated to by the parties, must make a request for continuance by a noticed motion or an
ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting
declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably
practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.
Because Rule 3.1332 grants statutory authority for an ex parte application for continuance, this
&
WN
application also necessarily complies with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1202 et seq..
DB
regarding ex parte applications.
NN
2. Good Cause Exists for Granting a Continuance of Trial
Oo
Among other factors and circumstances, in determining whether to grant or deny a
So
10 continuance of trial, the court properly considers the unavailability of a party because of death,
11 illness, or other excusable circumstances; the proximity of the trial date; whether there was any
12 previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; length of the
13
continuance requested; the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise
14
to the motion or application for a continuance; the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer
15
as a result of the continuance; and whether the interests of justice are best served by a
16
17 continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance. These
18 factors derive from the California Rules of Court.
19 In particular, California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332 (c) states:
20
The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause
21 requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include:
22 (1) The trial court properly considers the unavailability of an essential witness because of
death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) the unavailability of a party
23 because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) The unavailability of
trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) The
24
substation of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the
25 substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) The addition of a new party if:
(A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and
26 prepare for trial; or (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to
conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s involvement in the
zi case; (6) A party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other
28 5
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT;
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER
material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) A significant, unanticipated change in
the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.
Moreover, Rule 3.1332 (d) provides that:
The court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the
determination, which may include: (1) The proximity of the trial date; (2) Whether there
was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; (3)
The length of the continuance requested; (4) The availability of alternative means to
address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance (5)
The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of 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 to avoid delay; (7) The court's calendar
and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (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
10 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 motion or
11 application.
12 An analysis of these factors demonstrates that good cause exists to continue the trial date.
13
a. The Unavailability of a Party or Witness Because of Death, Illness, or other
14 Excusable Circumstances
15 Mr. Singh is out of the country obtaining medical treatment which includes a series of
16 thoracic surgeries. Against his doctors’ orders, Mr. Singh flew to Roseville on August 2, 2018
17
solely to attend the court ordered settlement conference. On August 5, 2018, he returned to
18
continue his treatment including further surgery so that he could be well before the trial on
19
August 27, 2018. However, upon returning to India and undergoing additional medical
20
a procedures complications developed and Mr. Singh’s doctor has instructed him to take complete
22 bed rest and remain near the hospital for at least four weeks. (See Exhibit “A” to the Declaration
23 of Matthew C. Bradford)
24
Therefore, Mr. Singh is not available to return to the United States until September 8,
a
2018 at the earliest. It is not possible for Mr. Singh to attend the scheduled trial before September
26
8, 2018.
aa
28 6
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT;
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER
b. The Proximity of the Trial Date
The trial is currently set for August 27, 2018. Although this request is being made about
two weeks in advance of trial, Defendant’s counsel only became aware of Mr. Singh’s health
complications on Friday, August 10, 2018. Bradford Decl. § 3. Moreover, Defendant’s counsel
informed Plaintiff's counsel of Mr. Singh’s health condition on Monday, August 13, 2018 and
requested that Plaintiff stipulate to a trial continuance. Bradford Decl. § 4. Plaintiffs counsel
ND
rejected Defendant’s request. Bradford Decl. § 4.
Oo
c. Whether There was any Previous Continuance, Extension of Time, or Delay
Co
of Trial Due to any Party
10
This is Mr. Singh’s first request for trial continuance. This is the second time that any
11
party has requested to continue the trial date. On March 8, 2018 this Court granted Plaintiff's
12
13 motion to continue the trial date from March 19, 2018 to August 27, 2018 and to re-open
14 discovery. No other party has previously sought to continue the trial date.
15 d. The Length of the Continuance Requested
16 This application only seeks a continuance of two months. This length is reasonable
17
considering that the earliest Mr. Singh could be healthy enough to attend trial is September 8,
18
2018 and it is unknown if Mr. Singh’s health issues will be resolved by then. Furthermore, even
19
if the trial is continued to longer than two months, or soon thereafter, the trial would occur well
20
21 within California Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310’s requirement that cases be brought to
22 trial within five years.
23 Alternatively, this Court may consider setting a trial setting conference in three months to
24 permit a status update on Mr. Singh’s health to more appropriately gauge when the matter may be
25
suitable for trial.
26
27
28 7
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT;
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER
e. The Availability of Alternative Means to Address the Problem that gave rise
to the Motion or Application for a Continuance
Mr. Singh’s doctor has ordered him to remain near the hospital in India and to take
complete bed rest for the next four weeks. It would be impossible for Mr. Singh to comply with
&
his doctors’ instructions and attend the currently scheduled trial in Roseville on August 27, 2018.
NN
Given the extensive distance between Roseville and India, there does not appear to be any
DN
alternative means to address this problem.
No
Oo
f. The Prejudice that Parties or Witnesses will Suffer as a Result of the
Continuance
So
10 There is no prejudice to any party that would ensue from continuing the trial. All parties
11 will benefit from a continuance as it will allow a named party, Mr. Singh, to attend the trial.
12 Without Mr. Singh present at the trial, Plaintiff and co-defendants will be unable to call Mr. Singh
13
as a witness and Mr. Singh will be unable to effectively defend against allegations and evidence
14
presented at trial.
15
Furthermore, the original complaint in this case was filed on December 10, 2014. For
16
17 three years Plaintiff conducted no discovery on Mr. Singh or RPI. Other than amending the
18 complaint three times, Plaintiff took no actions to further its’ case. Once the case was finally at
19 issue and on the eve of trial, Plaintiff moved to continue the trial. To date Plaintiff has not been
20 prejudiced by its’ own counsel’s lack of interest in moving the case forward, so there is no reason
21
why Plaintiff should be prejudiced by a two-month continuance now. If Plaintiff's counsel had
22
shown even a modicum of diligence in pursuing the present action, the trial would have already
23
happened well before Mr. Singh sought medical treatment out of the country.
24
25 g. Whether the Interests of Justice are Best Served by a Continuance
26 The interests of justice are best served by a continuance. Defendant is physically unable
27 to attend the currently scheduled trial due to an excusable circumstance — health complications
28 8
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT;
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER
due to recent surgeries. Without granting a continuance of trial, Defendant will be prevented
from presenting a competent defense to Plaintiff's claims, which Defendant adamantly disputes.
IV. Defendant Provided Appropriate Notice of Ex Parte Application
On August 15, 2018, at approximately 9:53 A.M., Mr. Bradford sent an email to Mr. Warner,
Plaintiff's attorney, Defendants Gurraj Singh Grewal, Sonora Petroleum Inc., and Sonora
Gasoline Corporation informing them that Defendant was providing notice of this Ex Parte
ND
Application to Continue the Trial Date, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1202 et seq.
CO
and that Defendant had set an ex parte hearing scheduled for Thursday, August 16, 2018, at 8:00
So
10 A.M., in Department 42, 10820 Justice Center Drive, Roseville, CA 9567, where Defendant
11 would request that the Court issue an order continuing the trial date in accordance with the new
12 trial date. Bradford Decl. 4 5 and Exhibit “B” to the Declaration of Matthew C. Bradford.
13
There has been one previously filed motion to continue the trial. Bradford Decl. § 6.
14
Pursuant to Rule 3.1202 of the California Rules of Court, the name, address, and
15
telephone number of the attorney for Plaintiff is as follows: Paul A. Warner, 1624 Santa Clara
16
Drive, Suite 220, Roseville, CA 95661, Phone # (916) 996-3100, fax (916) 789-7557, email:
17
18 pwarner@pacdining.com. Bradford Dec. { 7. Pursuant to Rule 3.1202 of the California Rules of
19 Court, the name, address, and telephone number of Defendant Gurraj Singh Grewal is as follows:
20 Gurraj Singh Grewal, 1556 Shaw Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611 (and/or 863 Tennessee Avenue
21
North, Parsons, TN 38363), Phone #: unknown, fax: unknown, email: foxoilgas@yahoo.com.
22
Bradford Dec. § 7. Pursuant to Rule 3.1202 of the California Rules of Court, the name, address,
23
and telephone number of Defendant Sonora Petroleum Inc. is as follows: Sonora Petroleum Inc.
24
25 1556 Shaw Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611 (and/or 863 Tennessee Avenue North, Parsons, TN
26 38363), Phone #: unknown, fax: unknown, email: foxoilgas@yahoo.com. Pursuant to Rule
27 3.1202 of the California Rules of Court, the name, address, and telephone number of Defendant
28 9
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT;
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER
Sonora Gasoline Corporation is as follows: Sonora Gasoline Corporation 1556 Shaw Avenue,
Clovis, CA 93611 (and/or 863 Tennessee Avenue North, Parsons, TN 38363), Phone #: unknown,
fax: unknown, email: foxoilgas@yahoo.com. Bradford Dec. § 7.
V. Conclusion
-
WN
Based on the foregoing, Defendant respectfully requests this Court grant this Ex Parte
DB
Application to Continue the Trial Date until October 8, 2018, or soon thereafter as is convenient
NY
for the Court.
Oo
SoS
10 DATED: August 15, 2018 ROBINSON BRADFORD LLP.
11 sy: LO
” Nathan M. Robinson, a
12 Attorney for Defendants, Nirmal Singh and Roseville
13 Petroleum, Inc.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 10
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT;
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE
I, Matthew C. Bradford, declare as follows.
1. [am the attorney of record for Defendant Nirmal Singh in the above-captioned
Bf
case. I make this declaration of my own personal knowledge and if called to testify, I could and
Nn
would competently testify as follows.
Dn
De Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, is a true
NN
OH
and correct copy of a doctors’ note provided by Mr. Singh to me on Friday, August 10, 2018.
So
3 Although this request is being made about two weeks in advance of trial, I only
10
became aware of Mr. Singh’s health complications on Friday, August 10, 2018.
11
4. I informed Plaintiff's counsel of Mr. Singh’s health condition on Monday, August
12
13, 2018 and requested that Plaintiff stipulate to a trial continuance. On August 14, 2018
13
14 Plaintiff's counsel informed my associate, Nathan Robinson, that Plaintiff rejected Defendant’s
15 request for a trial continuance.
16 5. On August 15, 2018, at approximately 9:53 A.M., I sent an email to Mr. Warner,
17
Plaintiff's attorney, Defendants Gurraj Singh Grewal, Sonora Petroleum Inc., and Sonora
18
Gasoline Corporation, informing them that Defendant was providing notice of this Ex Parte
19
Application to Continue the Trial Date, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1202 et seq.
20
and that Defendant had set an ex parte hearing scheduled for Thursday, August 16, 2018, at 8:00
21
22 A.M., in Department 42, 10820 Justice Center Drive, Roseville, CA 9567, where Defendant
23 would request that the Court issue an order continuing the trial date in accordance with the new
24 trial date. To date, neither Mr. Warner nor Defendants Gurraj Singh Grewal, Sonora Petroleum,
25
Inc., and/or Sonora Gasoline Corporation have responded to my email. Attached as Exhibit “B”
26
is a true and correct copy of the email exchange between counsel and Defendants. Defendant
27
28 11
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT;
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER
does not know whether Plaintiff and/or Defendants Gurraj Singh Grewal, Sonora Petroleum, Inc.,
and Sonora Gasoline Corporation will appear to oppose the application. I have not provided
notice of the Ex Parte Application to Continue the Trial Date to any other named parties because
those parties have demurred out of the case.
6. There has been one previously filed motion to continue the trial.
7. Pursuant to Rule 3.1202 of the California Rules of Court, the name, address, and
ND
telephone number of the attorney for Plaintiff is as follows: Paul A. Warner, 1624 Santa Clara
CO
Drive, Suite 220, Roseville, CA 95661, Phone # (916) 996-3100, fax (916) 789-7557, email:
Co
10 pwarner@pacdining.com. Pursuant to Rule 3.1202 of the California Rules of Court, the name,
11 address, and telephone number of Defendant Gurraj Singh Grewal is as follows: Gurraj Singh
12 Grewal, 1556 Shaw Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611 (and/or 863 Tennessee Avenue North, Parsons,
13
TN 38363), Phone #: unknown, fax: unknown, email: foxoilgas@yahoo.com. Pursuant to Rule
14
3.1202 of the California Rules of Court, the name, address, and telephone number of Defendant
15
Sonora Petroleum Inc. is as follows: Sonora Petroleum Inc. 1556 Shaw Avenue, Clovis, CA
16
93611 (and/or 863 Tennessee Avenue North, Parsons, TN 38363), Phone #: unknown, fax:
17
18 unknown, email: foxoilgas@yahoo.com. Pursuant to Rule 3.1202 of the California Rules of
19 Court, the name, address, and telephone number of Defendant Sonora Gasoline Corporation is as
20 follows: Sonora Gasoline Corporation 1556 Shaw Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611 (and/or 863
21
Tennessee Avenue North, Parsons, TN 38363), Phone #: unknown, fax: unknown, email:
22
foxoilgas@yahoo.com.
23
The foregoing facts are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I make this
24
25 declaration under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California. This declaration
26 was entered into in Maui County, Hawaii.
al
28 12
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT;
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER
DATED: August 15, 2018
WN
DB
NY
Oo
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ee
23
24
25
26
Pa
28 13
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT;
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
8/15/2018 Robinsog.Bradford LLP Mail - Voyager v. Sonora: Ex Parte Appligation to Continue Trial Date
Nathan Robinson
Voyager v. Sonora: Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial
Date
1 message
Matthew Bradford Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 9:53 AM
To: "Paul A. Warner" , foxoilgas@yahoo.com, SMITH AND
BURSTEIN
Cc: Nancy Amezcua , Nathan Robinson
We have reserved an ex parte hearing to continue the trial date to be heard in Dept 42
of the Placer County Superior Court, 10820 Justice Center Drive, Roseville, CA 95678,
at 8:00am on Thursday, August 16, 2018, seeking an order to continue the trial date.
Matthew C. Bradford, Esq.
Robinson Bradford, LLP
Direct Line: 858.480.6968
2ee8f&|sver=0kP6P|D6EqM.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_1 80808. 12_p1&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1653e8 16... 1/1
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=88dd7
8/15/2018 Robinggn Bradford LLP Mail - Voyager v. Sonora - Ex Parte Agpication to Continue Trial
Nathan Robinson
Voyager v. Sonora - Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial
1 message
Matthew Bradford Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 3:25 PM
To: "Paul A. Warner" , foxoilgas@yahoo.com, SMITH AND
BURSTEIN
Cc: Nancy Amezcua , Nathan Robinson
To all:
Attached is the Defendant Nirmal Singh's Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial
Date.
Matthew C. Bradford, Esq.
Robinson Bradford, LLP
Direct Line: 858.480.6968
= Ex Parte App Cont Trial 081518.pdf
9432K
&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1653f6b216... 1/4
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2 &ik=88dd7 2ee8f&jsver=0kP6P|D6EqM.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180808.12_p1
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, certify and declare as follows: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this
action. My business address is ROBINSON BRADFORD LLP, 3439 Brookside Rd., Suite 212, Stockton, CA 95219,
which is located in San Joaquin County where the mailing and/or delivery below took place.
On August 15, 2018, I served the following document(s): EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
ORDER TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF
MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER in the above-referenced case, by placing a true copy thereof,
enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed and served as follows:
NH
BY PERSONALLY DEPOSITING THE MAIL: On the date specified above, I deposited in the mail at
Stockton, California a copy of the document described above in a sealed envelope, certified mail, return
receipt requested with postage fully prepaid addressed to the individuals and/or to the offices of the
ND
addressee(s) below.
BY BUSINESS PRACTICE TO ENTRUST DEPOSIT TO OTHERS: | am readily familiar with the
OH
business practice at my place of business for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing
with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so collected and processed is deposited with the
Oo
United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. On the date specified
below, at my place of business at Stockton, California, a copy of the document described above was
SoS
placed for deposit in the United States Postal Service mailbox in a sealed envelope, with postage fully
prepaid addressed to the individuals and/or to the offices of the addressee(s) below, and that envelope
11 was placed for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practice.
BY EXPRESS SERVICE CARRIER: On the date specified below, I deposited in a box or other facility
12 regularly maintained by Federal Express, United Parcel Service or other express service carrier, or
delivered to a courier or driver authorized by said express service carrier to receive documents, a copy of
13 the document mentioned above, in an envelope designed by the said express service carrier, with delivery
fees paid or provided for addressed to the individuals and/or to the offices of the addressee(s) below.
14
BY PERSONAL SERVICE: On the date specified below, I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand
addressed to the individuals and/or to the offices of the addressee(s) below.
15
BY FAX TRANSMISSION: On the date specified below, I transmitted from a facsimile transmission
16 machine the documents described above addressed to the individuals and/or to the offices of the
addressee(s) below. The above-described transmission was reported as complete without error by a
17 transmission issued by the facsimile transmission machine upon which the said transmission was
immediately following the transmission to the individuals and/or to the offices of the addressee(s) below.
18 Gurraj Singh Grewal/Sonora Petroleum, Inc./Sonora
Paul A. Warner, Esq.
1624 Santa Clara Drive, Suite 220 Gasoline Corporation,
19 Roseville, CA 95661 1556 Shaw Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611
Telephone: (916) 996-3100 (and/or 863 Tennessee Avenue North, Parsons, TN
20 Facsimile: (916) 789-7557 38363)
Email: pwarner@pacdining.com Phone #: unknown,
21 fax: unknown,
email: foxoilgas@yahoo.com
22
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc._| In Pro Per f
23 sa of Cdliforn foregoing is
I certify and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of th
24
true and correct. /
Executed on August 15, 2018, at Stockton, California.
Za
26 antosds (_)
27
28
16
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
Matthew C. Bradford, Esq. (196798) Nathan M. Robinson, Esq. (305611) ROBINSON BRADFORD LLP 3439 Brookside Road, Suite 212 FILED SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIPORMIA Ww Stockton, CA 95219 COUNTY MF PH Ae Telephone: (209) 954-9001 Bf Facsimile: (209) 954-9091 AUG 16 2018 NN JAKE CHATTERS Attorneys for Defendants, EXECUTIVE OFFICER & CLERK DBD By: C. Henderson, Deputy Roseville Petroleum, Inc., Nirmal Singh NY SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA CO COUNTY OF PLACER Oo (UNLIMITED CIVIL) 10 11 VOYAGER RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., a CASE NO.: S-CV-0035599 California corporation 12 DEFENDANT NIRMAL SINGH’S EX Plaintiff, PARTE APPLICATION TO 13 CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; 14 VS. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. 15 SONORA GASOLINE CORPORATION, a BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER California corporation formerly known as 16 SONORA PETROLEUM, INC., a California Date: August 16, 2018 corporation, GURRAJ SINGH GREWAL, Time: 8:00 A.M. 17 SABAL FINANCIAL GROUP LP, a Dept.: 42 18 Delaware limited partnership; 2012-SIP-1 Judge: VENTURE LLC, A Delaware limited 19 liability company as successor to Tennessee State Charted Bank, ROSEVILLE 20 PETROLEUM, INC., a California corporation, NIRMAL SINGH, and DOES 21 ONE through TWENTY, inclusive 22 Defendants. ae TO EACH PARTY AND TO THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY: 24 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT on August 16, 2018 at 8:00 am., in 25 Department 42 of the Court located at 10820 Justice Center Drive, Roseville, California 95678, 26 Defendant Nirmal Singh, through his counsel, will apply ex parte for an order to Continue the Trial 27 Date by at least 60 days from the current trial date of August 27, 2018. This application is made in 28 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER accordance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1200 et seq. The basis for the motion to continue the trial date is that Defendant Nirmal Singh cannot attend the trial as currently scheduled because he has had complications with a recent medical procedure. Furthermore, Mr. Singh had this procedure performed outside of the country and Mr. Singh is still out of the country due to these medical complications. Previously, on March 8, 2018 this Court granted Plaintiffs motion to continue the trial date ND from March 19, 2018 to August 27, 2018 and to re-open discovery. No other party has made any other ex parte application to continue the trial date. CO This ex parte relief sought by Plaintiff is based upon this application, the attached So 10 memorandum in support, the attached declaration of Matthew C. Bradford, the files and records in 11 this action, and any further evidence or argument that the Court may properly receive at or before 12 the hearing. 13 Mr. Bradford provided written notice of this ex parte application, its date, time and location 14 and the relief requested to Plaintiff and Defendants Gurraj Singh Grewal, Sonora Petroleum Inc., 15 and Sonora Gasoline Corporation on August 15, 2018. To date, neither Plaintiff's nor Defendants 16 Gurraj Singh Grewal, Sonora Petroleum, Inc., and/or Sonora Gasoline Corporation have responded 17 to Mr. Bradford’s written notice. Defendant does not know whether Plaintiff and/or Defendants 18 Gurraj Singh Grewal, Sonora Petroleum, Inc., and Sonora Gasoline Corporation will appear to 19 oppose the application. The declaration attached hereto satisfies the requirements of California 20 Rules of Court Rule 3.1204. Zi 22 23 DATED: August 15, 2018 ROBINSON BRADFORD LLP 24 Nathan M. Robinson, Esq. 25 Attorney for Defendant, Roseville Petroleum, Inc., Nirmal Singh 26 27 28 2 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE I. Introduction Plaintiff's allegations stem from a contractual dispute between Plaintiff and defendants Sonora Gasoline Corporation (“SGC”) and/or Sonora Petroleum, Inc. (“SPI”), not Defendants Roseville Petroleum, Inc. (“RPI”) and Nirmal Singh (“Mr. Singh”). In Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), Plaintiff asserts the legal theories of conspiracy and alter ego in order to bring RPI and Mr. Singh into the case. The TAC also fails to allege facts that explain how Defendants RPI and Mr. Singh negligently or intentionally interfered with the contract between 10 11 Plaintiff and SGC/SPI. Plaintiff fails to allege any independently tortious conduct by either RPI 12 or Mr. Singh which interfered with Plaintiffs lease and does not allege any specific harm or 13 damages incurred that Defendants have caused that is separate and distinct from the actions of the 14 other named Defendants. In short, RPI and Mr. Singh are not proper parties to this lawsuit. 15 Despite the misplaced allegations, RPI and Mr. Singh have diligently defended against 16 Plaintiff's claims and accordingly prepared for trial which is set to begin August 27, 2018. 17 However, the trial needs to be continued because Mr. Singh has had complications with a recent 18 19 laparoscopic abdominal surgery performed in India and he is under doctors’ orders to remain on 20 bed rest and stay near the hospital in India for at least the next four weeks. If trial is not 21 continued, Defendant will be substantially prejudiced because he will be unable to attend the trial. 22 This is the second time that any party has requested to continue the trial date. On March 23 8, 2018 this Court granted Plaintiff's motion to continue the trial date from March 19, 2018 to 24 August 27, 2018 and to re-open discovers No other party has previously sought ex parte relief to 25 continue the trial date. Defendant is not aware of any potential prejudice that would ensue from 26 27 continuing the trial date. Therefore, there is good cause to continue the trial date because one of 28 3 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER the Defendants health prevents him from attending the trial. Based on the foregoing, the Defendant applies to this Court for a two-month continuance of the trial date, without re-opening discovery. II. Factual Background Voyager alleges in the TAC that it entered into a contract with SPI (now alleged to be SGC) in order to build a Sonic Restaurant on the real property located at 2998 Foothills Boulevard, Roseville, CA 95661 (“Real Property”). TAC § 14. Plaintiff attached said contract to the TAC. See Exh. A to TAC. In the contract, SGC agreed to pay to build the Sonic. TAC 4 14; 10 See Exh. A to TAC. Voyager then alleges that SGC failed to pay Voyager the agreed upon 11 amount to build the Sonic. TAC § 19. 12 Plaintiff then alleges that Defendants RPI and Mr. Singh have negligently and 13 alternatively intentionally asserted control of the Real Property and interfered with Plaintiff's 14 lease and quiet enjoyment thereof to the detriment and damage to Plaintiff. TAC 4§ 24 - 29. 15 Voyager’s TAC does not provide any facts that show a relationship or even any communications 16 between Voyager and RPI or Mr. Singh. Voyager’s TAC does not show any facts that there is a 17 separate relationship between RPI/Mr. Singh and the other named defendants, beside from being 18 a current tenant of the real property at issue. Voyager does not provide any facts as to when or 19 how the RPI tenancy relates to Voyager’s claims. 20 lil. Legal Discussion 21 ae A. The Discretionary Authority of This Court Favors Granting Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion to Continue Trial Based on Good Cause 23 1. An Order to Continue Trial May Be Made Via Ex Parte Application 24 Defendant respectfully requests an order from the Court pursuant to California Rules of 25 26 Court, Rule 3.1332, continuing the trial in this matter for at least two months, or as soon 27 thereafter as is convenient for the Court. Rule 3.1332 (b) states: 28 4 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER A party seeking a continuance of the date of trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make a request for continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered. Because Rule 3.1332 grants statutory authority for an ex parte application for continuance, this & WN application also necessarily complies with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1202 et seq.. DB regarding ex parte applications. NN 2. Good Cause Exists for Granting a Continuance of Trial Oo Among other factors and circumstances, in determining whether to grant or deny a So 10 continuance of trial, the court properly considers the unavailability of a party because of death, 11 illness, or other excusable circumstances; the proximity of the trial date; whether there was any 12 previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; length of the 13 continuance requested; the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise 14 to the motion or application for a continuance; the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer 15 as a result of the continuance; and whether the interests of justice are best served by a 16 17 continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance. These 18 factors derive from the California Rules of Court. 19 In particular, California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332 (c) states: 20 The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause 21 requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: 22 (1) The trial court properly considers the unavailability of an essential witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) the unavailability of a party 23 because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) The 24 substation of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the 25 substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) The addition of a new party if: (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and 26 prepare for trial; or (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s involvement in the zi case; (6) A party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other 28 5 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. Moreover, Rule 3.1332 (d) provides that: The court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination, which may include: (1) The proximity of the trial date; (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; (3) The length of the continuance requested; (4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of 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 to avoid delay; (7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (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 10 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 motion or 11 application. 12 An analysis of these factors demonstrates that good cause exists to continue the trial date. 13 a. The Unavailability of a Party or Witness Because of Death, Illness, or other 14 Excusable Circumstances 15 Mr. Singh is out of the country obtaining medical treatment which includes a series of 16 thoracic surgeries. Against his doctors’ orders, Mr. Singh flew to Roseville on August 2, 2018 17 solely to attend the court ordered settlement conference. On August 5, 2018, he returned to 18 continue his treatment including further surgery so that he could be well before the trial on 19 August 27, 2018. However, upon returning to India and undergoing additional medical 20 a procedures complications developed and Mr. Singh’s doctor has instructed him to take complete 22 bed rest and remain near the hospital for at least four weeks. (See Exhibit “A” to the Declaration 23 of Matthew C. Bradford) 24 Therefore, Mr. Singh is not available to return to the United States until September 8, a 2018 at the earliest. It is not possible for Mr. Singh to attend the scheduled trial before September 26 8, 2018. aa 28 6 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER b. The Proximity of the Trial Date The trial is currently set for August 27, 2018. Although this request is being made about two weeks in advance of trial, Defendant’s counsel only became aware of Mr. Singh’s health complications on Friday, August 10, 2018. Bradford Decl. § 3. Moreover, Defendant’s counsel informed Plaintiff's counsel of Mr. Singh’s health condition on Monday, August 13, 2018 and requested that Plaintiff stipulate to a trial continuance. Bradford Decl. § 4. Plaintiffs counsel ND rejected Defendant’s request. Bradford Decl. § 4. Oo c. Whether There was any Previous Continuance, Extension of Time, or Delay Co of Trial Due to any Party 10 This is Mr. Singh’s first request for trial continuance. This is the second time that any 11 party has requested to continue the trial date. On March 8, 2018 this Court granted Plaintiff's 12 13 motion to continue the trial date from March 19, 2018 to August 27, 2018 and to re-open 14 discovery. No other party has previously sought to continue the trial date. 15 d. The Length of the Continuance Requested 16 This application only seeks a continuance of two months. This length is reasonable 17 considering that the earliest Mr. Singh could be healthy enough to attend trial is September 8, 18 2018 and it is unknown if Mr. Singh’s health issues will be resolved by then. Furthermore, even 19 if the trial is continued to longer than two months, or soon thereafter, the trial would occur well 20 21 within California Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310’s requirement that cases be brought to 22 trial within five years. 23 Alternatively, this Court may consider setting a trial setting conference in three months to 24 permit a status update on Mr. Singh’s health to more appropriately gauge when the matter may be 25 suitable for trial. 26 27 28 7 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER e. The Availability of Alternative Means to Address the Problem that gave rise to the Motion or Application for a Continuance Mr. Singh’s doctor has ordered him to remain near the hospital in India and to take complete bed rest for the next four weeks. It would be impossible for Mr. Singh to comply with & his doctors’ instructions and attend the currently scheduled trial in Roseville on August 27, 2018. NN Given the extensive distance between Roseville and India, there does not appear to be any DN alternative means to address this problem. No Oo f. The Prejudice that Parties or Witnesses will Suffer as a Result of the Continuance So 10 There is no prejudice to any party that would ensue from continuing the trial. All parties 11 will benefit from a continuance as it will allow a named party, Mr. Singh, to attend the trial. 12 Without Mr. Singh present at the trial, Plaintiff and co-defendants will be unable to call Mr. Singh 13 as a witness and Mr. Singh will be unable to effectively defend against allegations and evidence 14 presented at trial. 15 Furthermore, the original complaint in this case was filed on December 10, 2014. For 16 17 three years Plaintiff conducted no discovery on Mr. Singh or RPI. Other than amending the 18 complaint three times, Plaintiff took no actions to further its’ case. Once the case was finally at 19 issue and on the eve of trial, Plaintiff moved to continue the trial. To date Plaintiff has not been 20 prejudiced by its’ own counsel’s lack of interest in moving the case forward, so there is no reason 21 why Plaintiff should be prejudiced by a two-month continuance now. If Plaintiff's counsel had 22 shown even a modicum of diligence in pursuing the present action, the trial would have already 23 happened well before Mr. Singh sought medical treatment out of the country. 24 25 g. Whether the Interests of Justice are Best Served by a Continuance 26 The interests of justice are best served by a continuance. Defendant is physically unable 27 to attend the currently scheduled trial due to an excusable circumstance — health complications 28 8 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER due to recent surgeries. Without granting a continuance of trial, Defendant will be prevented from presenting a competent defense to Plaintiff's claims, which Defendant adamantly disputes. IV. Defendant Provided Appropriate Notice of Ex Parte Application On August 15, 2018, at approximately 9:53 A.M., Mr. Bradford sent an email to Mr. Warner, Plaintiff's attorney, Defendants Gurraj Singh Grewal, Sonora Petroleum Inc., and Sonora Gasoline Corporation informing them that Defendant was providing notice of this Ex Parte ND Application to Continue the Trial Date, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1202 et seq. CO and that Defendant had set an ex parte hearing scheduled for Thursday, August 16, 2018, at 8:00 So 10 A.M., in Department 42, 10820 Justice Center Drive, Roseville, CA 9567, where Defendant 11 would request that the Court issue an order continuing the trial date in accordance with the new 12 trial date. Bradford Decl. 4 5 and Exhibit “B” to the Declaration of Matthew C. Bradford. 13 There has been one previously filed motion to continue the trial. Bradford Decl. § 6. 14 Pursuant to Rule 3.1202 of the California Rules of Court, the name, address, and 15 telephone number of the attorney for Plaintiff is as follows: Paul A. Warner, 1624 Santa Clara 16 Drive, Suite 220, Roseville, CA 95661, Phone # (916) 996-3100, fax (916) 789-7557, email: 17 18 pwarner@pacdining.com. Bradford Dec. { 7. Pursuant to Rule 3.1202 of the California Rules of 19 Court, the name, address, and telephone number of Defendant Gurraj Singh Grewal is as follows: 20 Gurraj Singh Grewal, 1556 Shaw Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611 (and/or 863 Tennessee Avenue 21 North, Parsons, TN 38363), Phone #: unknown, fax: unknown, email: foxoilgas@yahoo.com. 22 Bradford Dec. § 7. Pursuant to Rule 3.1202 of the California Rules of Court, the name, address, 23 and telephone number of Defendant Sonora Petroleum Inc. is as follows: Sonora Petroleum Inc. 24 25 1556 Shaw Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611 (and/or 863 Tennessee Avenue North, Parsons, TN 26 38363), Phone #: unknown, fax: unknown, email: foxoilgas@yahoo.com. Pursuant to Rule 27 3.1202 of the California Rules of Court, the name, address, and telephone number of Defendant 28 9 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER Sonora Gasoline Corporation is as follows: Sonora Gasoline Corporation 1556 Shaw Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611 (and/or 863 Tennessee Avenue North, Parsons, TN 38363), Phone #: unknown, fax: unknown, email: foxoilgas@yahoo.com. Bradford Dec. § 7. V. Conclusion - WN Based on the foregoing, Defendant respectfully requests this Court grant this Ex Parte DB Application to Continue the Trial Date until October 8, 2018, or soon thereafter as is convenient NY for the Court. Oo SoS 10 DATED: August 15, 2018 ROBINSON BRADFORD LLP. 11 sy: LO ” Nathan M. Robinson, a 12 Attorney for Defendants, Nirmal Singh and Roseville 13 Petroleum, Inc. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE I, Matthew C. Bradford, declare as follows. 1. [am the attorney of record for Defendant Nirmal Singh in the above-captioned Bf case. I make this declaration of my own personal knowledge and if called to testify, I could and Nn would competently testify as follows. Dn De Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, is a true NN OH and correct copy of a doctors’ note provided by Mr. Singh to me on Friday, August 10, 2018. So 3 Although this request is being made about two weeks in advance of trial, I only 10 became aware of Mr. Singh’s health complications on Friday, August 10, 2018. 11 4. I informed Plaintiff's counsel of Mr. Singh’s health condition on Monday, August 12 13, 2018 and requested that Plaintiff stipulate to a trial continuance. On August 14, 2018 13 14 Plaintiff's counsel informed my associate, Nathan Robinson, that Plaintiff rejected Defendant’s 15 request for a trial continuance. 16 5. On August 15, 2018, at approximately 9:53 A.M., I sent an email to Mr. Warner, 17 Plaintiff's attorney, Defendants Gurraj Singh Grewal, Sonora Petroleum Inc., and Sonora 18 Gasoline Corporation, informing them that Defendant was providing notice of this Ex Parte 19 Application to Continue the Trial Date, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1202 et seq. 20 and that Defendant had set an ex parte hearing scheduled for Thursday, August 16, 2018, at 8:00 21 22 A.M., in Department 42, 10820 Justice Center Drive, Roseville, CA 9567, where Defendant 23 would request that the Court issue an order continuing the trial date in accordance with the new 24 trial date. To date, neither Mr. Warner nor Defendants Gurraj Singh Grewal, Sonora Petroleum, 25 Inc., and/or Sonora Gasoline Corporation have responded to my email. Attached as Exhibit “B” 26 is a true and correct copy of the email exchange between counsel and Defendants. Defendant 27 28 11 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER does not know whether Plaintiff and/or Defendants Gurraj Singh Grewal, Sonora Petroleum, Inc., and Sonora Gasoline Corporation will appear to oppose the application. I have not provided notice of the Ex Parte Application to Continue the Trial Date to any other named parties because those parties have demurred out of the case. 6. There has been one previously filed motion to continue the trial. 7. Pursuant to Rule 3.1202 of the California Rules of Court, the name, address, and ND telephone number of the attorney for Plaintiff is as follows: Paul A. Warner, 1624 Santa Clara CO Drive, Suite 220, Roseville, CA 95661, Phone # (916) 996-3100, fax (916) 789-7557, email: Co 10 pwarner@pacdining.com. Pursuant to Rule 3.1202 of the California Rules of Court, the name, 11 address, and telephone number of Defendant Gurraj Singh Grewal is as follows: Gurraj Singh 12 Grewal, 1556 Shaw Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611 (and/or 863 Tennessee Avenue North, Parsons, 13 TN 38363), Phone #: unknown, fax: unknown, email: foxoilgas@yahoo.com. Pursuant to Rule 14 3.1202 of the California Rules of Court, the name, address, and telephone number of Defendant 15 Sonora Petroleum Inc. is as follows: Sonora Petroleum Inc. 1556 Shaw Avenue, Clovis, CA 16 93611 (and/or 863 Tennessee Avenue North, Parsons, TN 38363), Phone #: unknown, fax: 17 18 unknown, email: foxoilgas@yahoo.com. Pursuant to Rule 3.1202 of the California Rules of 19 Court, the name, address, and telephone number of Defendant Sonora Gasoline Corporation is as 20 follows: Sonora Gasoline Corporation 1556 Shaw Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611 (and/or 863 21 Tennessee Avenue North, Parsons, TN 38363), Phone #: unknown, fax: unknown, email: 22 foxoilgas@yahoo.com. 23 The foregoing facts are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I make this 24 25 declaration under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California. This declaration 26 was entered into in Maui County, Hawaii. al 28 12 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER DATED: August 15, 2018 WN DB NY Oo 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ee 23 24 25 26 Pa 28 13 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B 8/15/2018 Robinsog.Bradford LLP Mail - Voyager v. Sonora: Ex Parte Appligation to Continue Trial Date Nathan Robinson Voyager v. Sonora: Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date 1 message Matthew Bradford Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 9:53 AM To: "Paul A. Warner" , foxoilgas@yahoo.com, SMITH AND BURSTEIN Cc: Nancy Amezcua , Nathan Robinson We have reserved an ex parte hearing to continue the trial date to be heard in Dept 42 of the Placer County Superior Court, 10820 Justice Center Drive, Roseville, CA 95678, at 8:00am on Thursday, August 16, 2018, seeking an order to continue the trial date. Matthew C. Bradford, Esq. Robinson Bradford, LLP Direct Line: 858.480.6968 2ee8f&|sver=0kP6P|D6EqM.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_1 80808. 12_p1&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1653e8 16... 1/1 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=88dd7 8/15/2018 Robinggn Bradford LLP Mail - Voyager v. Sonora - Ex Parte Agpication to Continue Trial Nathan Robinson Voyager v. Sonora - Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial 1 message Matthew Bradford Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 3:25 PM To: "Paul A. Warner" , foxoilgas@yahoo.com, SMITH AND BURSTEIN Cc: Nancy Amezcua , Nathan Robinson To all: Attached is the Defendant Nirmal Singh's Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date. Matthew C. Bradford, Esq. Robinson Bradford, LLP Direct Line: 858.480.6968 = Ex Parte App Cont Trial 081518.pdf 9432K &view=pt&search=inbox&th=1653f6b216... 1/4 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2 &ik=88dd7 2ee8f&jsver=0kP6P|D6EqM.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180808.12_p1 PROOF OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, certify and declare as follows: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business address is ROBINSON BRADFORD LLP, 3439 Brookside Rd., Suite 212, Stockton, CA 95219, which is located in San Joaquin County where the mailing and/or delivery below took place. On August 15, 2018, I served the following document(s): EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF MATTHEW C. BRADFORD; PROPOSED ORDER in the above-referenced case, by placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed and served as follows: NH BY PERSONALLY DEPOSITING THE MAIL: On the date specified above, I deposited in the mail at Stockton, California a copy of the document described above in a sealed envelope, certified mail, return receipt requested with postage fully prepaid addressed to the individuals and/or to the offices of the ND addressee(s) below. BY BUSINESS PRACTICE TO ENTRUST DEPOSIT TO OTHERS: | am readily familiar with the OH business practice at my place of business for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so collected and processed is deposited with the Oo United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. On the date specified below, at my place of business at Stockton, California, a copy of the document described above was SoS placed for deposit in the United States Postal Service mailbox in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid addressed to the individuals and/or to the offices of the addressee(s) below, and that envelope 11 was placed for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practice. BY EXPRESS SERVICE CARRIER: On the date specified below, I deposited in a box or other facility 12 regularly maintained by Federal Express, United Parcel Service or other express service carrier, or delivered to a courier or driver authorized by said express service carrier to receive documents, a copy of 13 the document mentioned above, in an envelope designed by the said express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for addressed to the individuals and/or to the offices of the addressee(s) below. 14 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: On the date specified below, I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand addressed to the individuals and/or to the offices of the addressee(s) below. 15 BY FAX TRANSMISSION: On the date specified below, I transmitted from a facsimile transmission 16 machine the documents described above addressed to the individuals and/or to the offices of the addressee(s) below. The above-described transmission was reported as complete without error by a 17 transmission issued by the facsimile transmission machine upon which the said transmission was immediately following the transmission to the individuals and/or to the offices of the addressee(s) below. 18 Gurraj Singh Grewal/Sonora Petroleum, Inc./Sonora Paul A. Warner, Esq. 1624 Santa Clara Drive, Suite 220 Gasoline Corporation, 19 Roseville, CA 95661 1556 Shaw Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611 Telephone: (916) 996-3100 (and/or 863 Tennessee Avenue North, Parsons, TN 20 Facsimile: (916) 789-7557 38363) Email: pwarner@pacdining.com Phone #: unknown, 21 fax: unknown, email: foxoilgas@yahoo.com 22 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Voyager Restaurant Group, Inc._| In Pro Per f 23 sa of Cdliforn foregoing is I certify and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of th 24 true and correct. / Executed on August 15, 2018, at Stockton, California. Za 26 antosds (_) 27 28 16 PROOF OF SERVICE