Preview
KEVIN PIEKUT (SBN 185353) E-FILED
LAW OFFICE OF PENNY S. MOORE 3/15/2021 8:38 AM
677 West Palmdon Drive, Suite 106 Superior Court of California
Fresno, California 93704
Phone: (559) 436-1753 County of Fresno
Facsimile: (855) 866-7834 By: E Alvarado, Deputy
Email: piekutk@nationwide.com
Attorneys for Defendant, FRESH VALLEY INC. dba FRESHCO FOOD CENTER
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF FRESNO
10
11 PARAMJIT KAUR, Case No.: 20CECG00815
12 Plaintiff,
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
13 VS. SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER
14 FRESHCO FOOD CENTER, SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
15 Defendants. CONTINUE TRIAL
16 DATE: March 18, 2021
TIME: 3:30 P.M.
17 DEPT: 403
18 Complaint filed: March 04, 2020
Trial Date: May 10, 2021
19 Dept.: 403
Judge: Hon. Kristi C Kapetan
20
21 INTRODUCTION
22 Plaintiff claims that she suffered an injury on March 10, 2018, while she was shopping at
23 Defendant’s store. This is a negligence action in which the plaintiff seeks damages based on said
24 incident. Among other things, the Defendant disputes the nature and extent of the Plaintiffs
25 claimed injuries. That said, this is not a complicated case. However, the Plaintiff's refusal to
26 comply with her discovery obligations has caused numerous delays and the need to request court
27 intervention for the fourth time now. Ultimately, the Plaintiff's refusal to comply with her
28 MM
1
Kaur v. Freshco Food Center Memorandum in Support of Ex Parte Case No. 20CECG00815
20-003725 Application
discovery obligations has prejudiced the Defendant’s ability to defend itself and to prepare for
trial.
To summarize where things stand, the Defendant appeared by answer on May 4, 2020. A
routine set of discovery (form interrogatories, special interrogatories and a request for production
of documents) was served on the Plaintiff, who completely ignored her obligation to respond to
any of it. On July 17, 2020, the Defendant served its Motion to Compel. On October 20, 2020,
the court issued its order granting the Motion to Compel and imposing monetary sanctions on the
Plaintiff. After that, the Plaintiff continued to ignore her obligations to the court, forcing the
Defendant to spin its wheels even further. The Defendant filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions
10 after first getting an ex parte order to have that motion heard on short notice. The Ex Parte was
1 heard on Feb 2, 2021, and the Motion for Terminating Sanctions was heard on February 24, 2021.
12 At the hearing on February 24, the court denied the request for terminating sanctions, giving the
13 Plaintiff 30 more days “to respond to ALL outstanding discovery ....” However, at the February
14 24 hearing, counsel for Defendant asked the court to vacate the May 10, 2021, trial date on the
15 grounds that the Plaintiff's intransigence had prejudiced the Defendant’s ability to get this matter
16 ready for trial. The court agreed to vacate the trial date but then did not do so when it issued its
17 February 24, 2021, order.
18 On the assumption that the court forgot to address the issue of the trial continuance, the
19 Defendant now must move to have the trial and related dates continued. However, the soonest
20 the court can hear a motion to continue trial (by regularly noticed motion) is April 7, 2021. The
21 Defendant has already suffered prejudice by having to come to court time and again to deal with
22 the Plaintiff's delays. It is an expensive and time - consuming proposition to have to come to court
23 time and again just because a party won’t comply with her discovery obligations. The prejudice
24 would be deepened if the question of whether the trial will be continued remains up in the air until
25 right before the trial - - a trial that Defendant is not ready for because the Plaintiff has thumbed
26 her nose at the discovery process.
27 Il
28 Il
2
Kaur v. Freshco Food Center Memorandum in Support of Ex Parte Case No. 20CECG00815
20-003725 Application
AUTHORITY FOR APPLICATION
Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1005, the Court, or a judge thereof, may prescribe
a shorter time for the Notice of motions and for service and filing of moving and supporting papers.
As stated, the Defendant has already suffered prejudice by having to come to court time
and again to deal with the Plaintiff’s delays. It is an expensive and time - consuming proposition
to have to come to court time and again just because a party won’t comply with her discovery
obligations. The prejudice would be deepened if the question of whether the trial will be continued
remains up in the air until right before the trial --- a trial that defendant is not ready for because
the Plaintiff has thumbed her nose at the discovery process.
10 CONCLUSION
1 Based on the foregoing defendant respectfully requests that the court grant this ex parte
12 application and schedule a hearing date on the Motion to Continue Trial as soon as possible.
13
14 Dated: March 15, 2021 LAW OFFICE OFE . MOORE
15
16
f______
17 Attome efendant, FRESH VALLEY
INC. dba FRESHCO FOOD CENTER
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Kaur v. Freshco Food Center Memorandum in Support of Ex Parte Case No. 20CECG00815
20-003725 Application
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, declare that I am, and was at the time of the service hereinafter
mentioned, over the age of 18 years and not
677 West Palmdon Dnive, Suite 106, Fresno,
States and employed in Fresno, Califomia.
a
Califo mia
to the within action. My business address
93704; I am a citizen of the United
is
On the date indicated below, I served as follows a true copy of the foregoing:
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR ORDER IR. IN
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
BY U.S. MAIL:
postage thereon fi
California, addresse
uhd.laced
prepaid, in th
a true co yy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with
e United States Post Office mail at Fresno,
as set forth below.
By personally delivering, or causing to be delivered, a true copy thereof to the
person at the address(es) set forth below.
10
1 adres ising
(es)
a true copy thereof to be delivered to the party or parties at the
listed below, by and/or through the services of:
12 X FedEx Priority Overnight
—_____ Express Mail
13 FAX telecopied (followed by First Class Mail)
—_____
—_____ Via Email to the Addresses ist Below
14
Pro Se:
15
Paramjit Kaur
16 3165 West Shields Ave., Apt 213
Fresno, CA 93722
17 T: (559) 260-1758
18 I am familiar with the business practice of LAW OFFICE OF PENNY S. MOORE with
regard to collection and processing of documents for mailing with the United States Postal Service.
19 The documents described above were sealed and placed for collection and mailing on the date
stated below. Pursuant to said business practices, documents were deposited with the United States
20 Postal Service in Fresno, California, that same day in the ordinary course of business.
21 Executed on March 15, 2021, in Fresno, California. I declare under penalty of perjury
under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.
22
23
a essica
D)
eee CONF
24
Jessica Dominguez
25
26
27
28
4
Kaur v. Freshco Food Center Memorandum in Support of Ex Parte Case No. 20CECG00815
20-003725 Application
ORIGIN ID:TRMA (559) 436-1753 SHIP DATE: 15MAR21
JESSICA DOMIN'
NATION! CAD; 109278538/INET4340
677 WEST PALMDON DRIVE, SUITE 106
FRESNO, CA 93704 BILL SENDER
UNITED STATES US
To PARAMJIT KAUR
3165 WEST SHIELDS AVE., APT 213
FRESNO CA 93722
i 260-1758 REF: 190401
DEPT: 20-003725
|
I TAT HHMI MI WTA AY ee Il
thal
i}
1 bt ae
i
TUE - 16 MAR 12:00P
PRIORITY OVERNIGHT
toot] 7731 4792 2380 RES
93722 i
WC TRMA
VMNI
CA-US FAT
56
os
S=
Es
Ee <
a6
2
ge
ae
2
ge
<2
aoe
as53
SEs
£2
Bao
Ene
ce
ace
fag
coe
£22
ees
5 Bo
grou
fon