Application, Motion-Undefined in Pacific Union International, Inc. vs. Ludwick, Erik et al| Trellis.Law

On November 07, 2018 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Pacific Union International, Inc., and Booth, Paul D., Trustee Of The Anything Trust, Erik Ludwick, The Anything Trust Dated Oct. 12, 2007, for Civil-Roseville in the District Court of Placer County.

Preview
SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC.
SHANNON B. JONES (Bar No. 149222)
sbj@sbj-law.com
N

LINDSEY A. MORGAN (Bar No. 274214)
CS SOUR oF egironns
SUPERIOR
Ww

lam@sbj-law.com
208 W. El Pintado Road FEB 18 2070
&.

Danville, California 94526
JAKE GHATTERS
On

Telephone: (925) 837-2317 EXECUTIVE OFFICER & CLERK
Facsimile: (925) 837-4831 By: C. Henderson, Deputy
ND

Attorneys for Plaintiff
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.
CO

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
So

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
10
11 PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. S-CV-0042080

eee”
12 Plaintiff, ee
ee
PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL,
13
ee

V. INC.’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
ee

AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL;
14
ee

ERIK LUDWICK, an individual and NOTICE OF APPLICATION;
ee

beneficiary of The Anything Trust Dated MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
15
ae

October 12, 2007; THE ANYTHING TRUST AUTHORITIES
ee

DATED OCTOBER 12, 2007; PAUL D.
16
ee

BOOTH, in his capacity as trustee of The
Date: February 18, 2020
ee

Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007; and
17
ee

DOES 1-50, Time: 8:00 a.m.
ee

Dept: 42
18
ee

Defendants.
Complaint Filed: November 7, 2018
19
a

Trial Date: June 15, 2020
a

20 Proposed New Trial Date: Sept. 21, 2020
ee
PN

21
22 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

23 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 18, 2020, at 8:00 a.m., in Department

24 42 of the Placer County Superior Court, located at 10820 Justice Center Drive, Roseville,

25 California, Plaintiff PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC. (“Pacific Union”) will apply ex

26 parte for an order continuing the trial date and associated discovery and motion deadlines, in

27 accordance with the stipulation of the parties. Pursuant to Rule 20.1.12 of the Local Rules of

28 Court of the Placer County Superior Court, the parties have stipulated, and respectfully request

PACIFIC UNION’S STIPULATED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL
the Court order, that the trial date in this matter be continued for approximately ninety (90) days,

from June 15, 2020 to September 21, 2020, or a date convenient to the Court thereafter.

This Application is made pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1332 and 3.1200

et seq., and is made on the grounds that good cause exists for the requested relief in that, among
Bf

other things, (1) there have been no previous requests for trial continuances in this matter; (2) the
Nn

Parties in the action are attempting to complete deposition discovery in good faith and without
DB

involving the Court, but need additional time because of the calendars of the non-party and party
NN

witnesses left to be deposed do not allow those witnesses to be deposed before the dispositive
Oo

motion deadline; (3) the length of the requested continuance is relatively short and the parties to
So

10 the instant action will not suffer prejudice by a continuance; (4) a continuance will allow the

11 parties to complete their respective investigations, evaluate their positions, and be in a better

12 position to seriously consider whether the matter should be mediated; (5) all parties and counsel

13 agree to the continuance, and affirmatively request the continuance pursuant to the attached

14 stipulation; and (6) the interests of justice will be served by a continuance.

15 This Application is based on the accompanying Memorandum of Points and

16 Authorities set forth below, the parties’ Stipulation to continue trial submitted herewith, the

17 Declaration of Shannon B. Jones (“Jones Decl.”), the pleadings and papers on file in this action,

18 and on such argument as may be heard at the time of the hearing.

19 A. The Parties and Their Counsel

20 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1202(a), the contact information for

21 the attorneys in this matter is as follows:

22 Attorneys for Defendants Erik Ludwick, The Co-Counsel for Defendants Erik Ludwick, The
Anything Trust and Paul Booth as Trustee of Anything Trust and Paul Booth as Trustee of
23 the Anything Trust the Anything Trust
Michael A.J. Nangano, Esq. Lawrence E. Skidmore, Esq.
24 Michael A.J. Nangano, A Law Corporation Aronowitz, Skidmore, Lyon
25 133 North Altadena Drive, Suite 403 200 Auburn Folsom Road, Suite 305
Pasadena, CA 91107 Auburn, CA 95603
26 Tel: (626) 796-9998 Tel: (530) 823-9736
Fax: (213) 232-3252 Fax: (530) 823-5241
27 mnangano@lacounsel.com Iskidmore@asilaw.org

28
2
PACIFIC UNION’S STIPULATED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL
B. Notice of Ex Parte Application

Counsel for all parties have agreed and stipulated to continue the trial, and were

advised of Pacific Union’s intention to proceed with this ex parte Application. On Thursday,

February 13, 2020, Counsel for Pacific Union provided notice of this ex parte application to

counsel for all parties who have appeared in this case by email. (Jones Decl., § 5, Ex. B.)

Counsel for Pacific Union will serve this Application on all parties at its first reasonable
BD

opportunity, and by electronic mail to ensure prompt receipt.
N

C. Previous Requests for Relief
Oo

There have been no prior ex parte applications in this action, and the parties have
So

10 not previously applied for a trial continuance. (Jones Decl., § 4.)

11 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

i2 lL INTRODUCTION

13 This action arises from a dispute between Plaintiff and Defendants regarding a

14 commission from the sale of real property. This action is presently scheduled for trial to

15 commence on June 15, 2020. The parties are working in good faith to complete discovery and

16 conduct all necessary depositions. The deposition of the trustee for the Anything Trust has been

17 taken, and written discovery has been exchanged by both sides. Defendants have requested to

18 take the deposition of one of Plaintiffs’ witnesses, and Plaintiff is attempting to find a mutually

19 agreeable day to depose Erik Ludwick. The calendars of the witnesses, however, are not

20 allowing the parties to take their depositions before the dispositive motion deadline.

21 The parties are meeting and conferring in good faith to resolve these scheduling

ib) problems and complete discovery ahead of the dispositive motion deadline without involving the

23 Court, but the quickly approaching trial date is creating time pressure that is forcing both sides to

24 be less accommodating. The parties have not yet attempted mediation or discussed mediating

25 the matter, because they have not yet completed their respective investigations. Expert discovery

26 has not yet started in this matter, and there have been no previous requests for trial continuances

27 in this matter.

28 ///

3
PACIFIC UNION’S STIPULATED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL
Accordingly, the parties respectfully request a short continuance of the trial date,

Ke
NH for approximately ninety (90) days, in order to finalize their investigations, meet and confer

regarding whether to mediate, complete the outstanding depositions, and, if necessary, complete
wD

expert discovery and file their dispositive motions before trial.
KR
WNW

Il. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Procedural Background
DO

On November 7, 2018, Pacific Union filed its Complaint, asserting causes of
N

action against Erik Ludwick, an individual and beneficiary of The Anything Trust Dated October
Oe

12, 2007; The Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007; and Paul D. Booth, in his capacity as
C0

trustee of The Anything Trust Dated October 12, 2007 (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting
OC
Ee |e

causes of action for: 1) Breach of Contract; 2) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith
KF
REO

and Fair Dealing; 3) Common Counts; 4) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; 5)
NY
FOO

Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; 6) Intentional Misrepresentation;
WY
FOO

7) Specific Performance; and 8) Declaratory Relief (the “Pacific Union Placer Complaint”) in
FF

this action. Pacific Union seeks, among other things, compensation owed to it under a
Fr
HBO

Residential Listing Agreement for the sale of real property located at 200 Toyopa Drive in
KF

Pacific Palisades, California. On July 2, 2019, this Court set this matter for trail on June 15,
KF
FN

2020.
KF

A separate but related lawsuit was filed on July 19, 2019 in Los Angeles Superior
ODO
KF

Court by defendant Erik Ludwick (Erik Ludwick vs. Partners’ Trust Real Estate Brokerage &
TD
NO

Acquisitions, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court number 19 STCV 25331 (the “Los
FY
NO

Angeles Action”)), in which Mr. Ludwick filed a Verified Complaint against Pacific Union and
Ne
NY

several related individuals and entities and alleging causes of action for: 1) Breach of Civil Code
We
NH

§ 2079.16; 2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 3) Fraud & Deceit—Actual &/Or Constructive; 4)
SP
NY

Intentional Interference with Prospective Contractual Relationship &/Or Economic Advantage;
UN
WN

5) Negligent Interference With Prospective Contractual Relationship &/Or Economic
DBO
NO

Advantage; 6) Professional Negligence; 7) Breach of Contract; 8) Breach of California Civil
wo
oN

Code § 17200; 9) Declaratory Relief as to Illegality of Contract; and 10) Declaratory Relief as to
DO

4
PACIFIC UNION’S STIPULATED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL
Commission Owed, If Any. The Los Angeles Action is not yet set for trial. Counsel for |

Ludwick represented that Ludwick intended to file a petition to coordinate the Los Angeles and

Placer matters. The petition has not been filed, to Pacific Union’s knowledge, but there was a

significant delay in moving forward with discovery efforts while waiting for resolution of that
&

issue.
WN

B. Discovery Efforts
DB

The parties are working in good faith to complete discovery and conduct all
NN
Oo

necessary depositions. Mr. Booth’s deposition has been taken, and written discovery has been
Co

exchanged by both sides. Defendants have requested to take the deposition of one of Plaintiffs’
10 witnesses, and Plaintiff is attempting to find a mutually agreeable day to depose Erik Ludwick.
11 The calendars of the witnesses, however, are not allowing the parties to take their depositions
12 before the dispositive motion deadline.
13 Ill. LEGAL ARGUMENT
14 A. There is Good Cause for a Trial Continuance

15 A party seeking a trial continuance may make the request by way of noticed
16 motion or an ex parte application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the
17 continuance is discovered. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (b).) A party is entitled to a
18 trial continuance upon a showing of good cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c).)
19 Good cause for a continuance includes the unavailability of trial counsel because of excusable
20 circumstances and a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of
21 which the case is not ready for trial. (/d.) Pursuant to subdivision (d) of Rule 3.1332, the Court
22 must “consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination” of good

23 cause, including:
24 (1) The proximity of the trial date;
25 (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension
of time, or delay of trial due to any party;
26
27 (3) The length of the continuance request; . . .

28 (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the
continuance; ...
5
PACIFIC UNION’S STIPULATED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL
(8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; . . .

(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 motion or application.
DD

(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, subd. (d).)
N

Whether to grant a continuance generally rests within the trial court’s broad
Oo

discretion. (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603; Oliveros v. County of
So

Los Angeles (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1395.) Liberality should be exercised in the granting
10
of continuances to obtain the presence of material evidence and to prevent miscarriages of
11
justice. (Canal Oil Co. v. National Oil Co., (1937) 19 Cal.App.2d 524, 535 (decided under Cal.
12
Code Civ. Proc. § 595).)
13
[D]ecisions about whether to grant a continuance or
14 extend discovery must be made in an atmosphere of
15 substantial justice. When the two policies collide head-
on, the strong public policy favoring disposition on the
16 merits outweighs the competing policy favoring judicial
efficiency. ... [A]bsent a lack of diligence or other
17 abusive circumstances ... a request for a continuance
supported by a showing of good cause usually ought to
18 be granted.
19
(Oliveros, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at 1396 [internal quotations and citations omitted].) A litigant
20
is entitled to a trial continuance when it is necessary for the litigant to present his or her case
21
fairly and fully. (Hays v. Viscome (1953) 122 Cal.App.2d 135, 140.) As one court has noted,
22
“good cause for continuance of trial . . . focuses on threats to procedural fairness as the
23 touchstone for granting such a motion.” (Panoche Energy Center, LLC v. Pacific Gas & Electric
24 Co. (2016) 1 Cal.App.Sth 68, 106, fn. 14.)
25 Good cause exists to continue the trial date in this action on the grounds that,
26 among other things, (1) there have been no previous requests for trial continuances in this matter;
27 (2) the Parties in the action are attempting to complete deposition discovery in good faith and
28 without involving the Court, but need additional time because of the calendars of the non-party
6
PACIFIC UNION’S STIPULATED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL
and party witnesses left to be deposed do not allow those witnesses to be deposed before the
NN dispositive motion deadline; (3) the length of the requested continuance is relatively short and

the parties to the instant action will not suffer prejudice by a continuance; (4) a continuance will
W

allow the parties to complete their respective investigations, evaluate their positions, and be in a
SBP

better position to seriously consider whether the matter should be mediated; (5) all parties and
On

counsel agree to the continuance, and affirmatively request the continuance pursuant to the
DBD

attached stipulation; and (6) the interests of justice will be served by a continuance.
NN

A Trial Continuance Should be Ordered on an Ex Parte Basis
Oo

The governing rule expressly authorizes a party to seek a continuance of a trial
So

10 date by way of an ex parte application. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (b).) The local

11 rule also directs the parties to present a stipulated application for trial continuance. (L.R. 10.8,

i2 20.1.12.) The rule recognizes that, by their nature, requests for a trial continuance are typically

13 time sensitive and require prompt resolution. Such is the case here. Unless and until the trial

14 date is continued, the parties will have to devote significant resources to trial preparation, before

15 they complete their investigations and before they attempt to resolve the dispute by mediation.

16 IV. CONCLUSION

17 For all the reasons set forth herein the trial date in this matter be continued to

18 September 21, 2020, and that all discovery and other deadlines be re-set by reference to the new

19 trial date. Good cause exists to continue the trial date to allow the parties to avoid the need to

20 expend substantial resources preparing the for trial prior to completing discovery and moving

21 forward with efforts to potentially resolve this matter through mediation.

22 Good cause exists for granting the request for a short trial continuance on an ex

22 parte basis, particularly as all of the parties have agreed.

24 Dated: February 14 , 2020
SHANNON B. JONES LAW GROUP, INC.
25

27 SHANNON B. JONES
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
28 PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.

7
PACIFIC UNION’S STIPULATED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL
PROOF OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, declare:

I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and
not a party to the within gction; my business address is 208 W. El Pintado Road, Danville, CA
94526. On February LE 2020, I served the within document(s):
wn

PACIFIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S STIPULATED EX PARTE
HD

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL; NOTICE OF APPLICATION;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
NY

X___ by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully
prepaid, in the United States mail at Danville, California addressed as set forth below.

X___ by transmitting via email the above listed document(s) to the email address(es) set forth
10 below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
11
Attorneys for Defendants Erik Ludwick, The Co-Counsel for Defendants Erik Ludwick, The
12 Anything Trust and Paul Booth as Trustee of Anything Trust and Paul Booth as Trustee of
the Anything Trust the Anything Trust
13 Michael A.J. Nangano, Esq. Lawrence E. Skidmore, Esq.
Michael A.J. Nangano, A Law Corporation Aronowitz, Skidmore, Lyon
14 133 North Altadena Drive, Suite 403 200 Auburn Folsom Road, Suite 305
15 Pasadena, CA 91107 Auburn, CA 95603
Tel: (626) 796-9998 Tel: (530) 823-9736
16 Fax: (213) 232-3252 Fax: (530) 823-5241
mnangano@lacounsel.com Iskidmore@asilaw.org
17 patti@lacounsel.com
18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct.
19
20 Executed on February /t, 2020, at Danville, California.

21
22 io 5 H. CASE
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
PACIFIC UNION’S STIPULATED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

February 18, 2020

Case Filing Date

November 07, 2018

County

Parties

Booth, Paul D., Trustee of The Anything Trust Defendant
Erik Ludwick Defendant
Jones, Shannon Ball Rossi Domingue LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Nangano, Michael Anthony John Michael AJ Nangano, A Law Corporation Attorney for the Defendant
Nangano, Michael Anthony John Michael AJ Nangano & Associates Attorney
Pacific Union International, Inc. Plaintiff
Skidmore, Lawrence E. Aronowitz & Skidmore Inc Attorney
Skidmore, Lawrence E. Aronowitz & Skidmore Inc Attorney for the Defendant
The Anything Trust Dated Oct. 12, 2007 Defendant
Lindsey Morgan Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Alan Jacobus Attorney
Franklin Bigelow Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Shannon Ball Attorney
Bruce Tackowiak Attorneys for Defendants
Susan Daley Attorney
Michael Agoglia Attorneys for Defendants
Amberly Morgan Attorney
Shannon Dillon Attorneys for Defendants
Dean Rossi Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Michael Antoncich Attorneys for Defendants
Michael Alfred Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: Pacific Union International, Inc. vs. Ludwick, Erik et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties