Preview
Lee J. Danforth, Esq. —SBN 73695
Carrie Dupic Huynh, Esq. —SBN 240252
CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH
A Professional Corporation, Lawyers SA
fLED
HATED COU
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300
Redwood City, CA 94065-2133 N I 013
4 Telephone: (650) 592-5400
Facsimile: (650) 592-5027 Qle / I QuPerlor Court
5
OEPLllY OLRRK
ATTORNEYS FOR Defendants
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND
/r
TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
11
MICHAELCHANG, an individual, Case No. CIV 489065
12
Plaintiff,
13 MEMORANDUMOF POINTS AND
vs. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE
14 APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., TIME FOR NOTICE OF HEARING ON
15 FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS MOTION
INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND TRUCK
INSURANCE EXCHANGE, reciprocal inter- Date: January 18, 2013
insurance exchanges; Does 1 to 99, Inclusive, Time: 2:00 p.m.
17 Dept.: Law & Motion
Defendants.
18 Trial Date: April 8, 2013
20 Defendants Farmers Insurance Exchange and Truck Insurance Exchange ("defendants")
21 respectfully submit the following memorandum of points and authorities in support of their ex parte
application for an order shortening time for notice of hearing on defendants'otion to continue trial.
23 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
24 Trial is set for April 8, 2013, and defendants'ntend to bring a motion for a continuance of that
25 trial date, will all pre-trial deadlines running from the new trial date,. (Declaration of Carrie Dupic
Huynh in Support of Ex Parte Application ("Huynh Declaration" ) at $ 2.) A motion will be necessary
27 because plaintiff's counsel previously advised defense counsel that plaintiff will oppose any request for
28 trial continuance. (Hu~ Declaration at $ 3.)
1
Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time
Case No: CIV 489065
1 On January 17, 2013, at approximately 9:40 a.m., defense counsel telephoned one of plaintiff's
2 attorneys, Gregg Garrison, to request stipulation to an order shortening time for notice of the hearing
3 on defendants'lanned motion for trialcontinuance. (Id. at tt 4.) Mr. Garrison refused (Id), and
4 defense counsel therefore advised Mr. Garrison that defendants would make an ex parte request for an
5 order shortening time. (Id. at $ 5.) Then, at 9:55 a.m. that same day, defense counsel sent an e-mail to
6 both plaintiff's attorneys, Mr. Garrison and Herman Kalfen, providing full ex parte notice in
7 compliance with the California Rules of Court. (Id. at $ 6 and Exhibit A thereto.)
8 Later that evening, at 7:06 p.m., defense counsel received an e-mail from Mr. Garrison
9 regarding plaintiff's objections to defendants'lanned motion for trial continuance. (Huynh
10 Declaration attt 7 and Exhibit B thereto.) That e-mail makes no mention of defendants'lan to make
11 an ex parte request for an order shortening time pertaining to that motion. (Id) It is apparent that
12 plaintiff abhors the idea of any delay (justihed or not) in trying this case —in fact, at the beginning and
13 conclusion of his e-mail, Mr. Garrison states: "[t]ime is of the essence." (Huynh Declaration at $ 8.)
14 Defense counsel therefore infers, given that defendants will be 61ing a motion for trial continuance in
15 any event, that plaintiff, too, would prefer to resolve the merits of defendants'otion as soon as
16 possible. (Id) In this regard, the parties actually appear to be in agreement regarding the desirability of
17 an order shortening time (Id), such that one should be granted.
18 II. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR GRANTING AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME
19 Section 1005(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that a party usually be given at least
20 sixteen court days'otice of a hearing on a motion. However, subdivision (b) of that section also
21 allows that "[t]he court, or a judge thereof, may prescribe a shorter time." In addition, Rule 3.1300(b)
22 of the California Rules of Court states: "The court, on itsown motion or on application for an order
23 shortening time supported by a declaration showing good cause, may prescribe shorter times for the
24 61ing and service of papers than the time specified in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1005."
25 Here, good cause exists for this ex parte request because the trial date is fewer than three
26 months away and the parties desire to resolve the merits of defendants'equest to continue trial as soon
27 as possible. (See Discussion in Part I, above, and Huynh Declaration at tttt4, 7-8, and Exhibit B
28 thereto.) If defendants'otion were formally noticed on January 18, 2013 (the date of hearing on this
2
Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support OE Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time
Case No: CIV 489065
1 ex parte application), it could not be heard until February 19, 2013, which would be little more than six
2 weeks before trial. (Huynh Declaration at $ 9.) One ground for continuing the trial date, which will be
3 articulated in defendants'otion for continuance, will be that additional time is needed to attempt
4 resolution of the insurance claims and other lawsuits underlying this case,'nd to conduct the complex
5 discovery that is necessary to prepare this case for trial. (Id. at f[ 10.) In view of these facts, a delayed
6 ruling on the motion for trial continuance would afford little practical beneht to the parties, counsel,
7 witnesses or the Court. (Id. at $11.)
8 By contrast, the sooner an order continuing trial is issued, the sooner this Court and the parties
9 may adjust their schedules, inform all witnesses and experts of the new trialdate and proceed with
10 negotiations, discovery and trial preparation. (Id. at f[ 12.) In summary, an expedited disposition of
11 defendants'otion will serve the interests of both parties (Id), and defendants are unaware of any
12 actual prejudice that would result to plaintiff by shortened notice and an accelerated brie6ng schedule
13 for the motion. (Id. at $ 13.) Allowing defendants'otion to be heard on shortened notice will serve
. 14 the economy and convenience of the parties and the Court. Accordingly, there isgood cause for this
15 Court to issue an ex parte order shortening time for notice of hearing on a motion for trial continuance.
16 III. CONCLUSION
-17 Based on the foregoing, good cause exists for an order shortening time for notice of hearing on
18 defendants'otion to continue trial. Accordingly, defendants request that the Court grant this request
19 and enter an order permitting defendants to file and serve their motion on shortened notice and
20 permitting an accelerated briefmg schedule.
21
Dated: January 18, 2013 CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH
23
24 Carrie Dupic Huyrdi
Attorneys for Defendants
25 Farmers Insurance Exchange and Truck
Insurance Exchange
26
27
28 'stensibly, plaintiffalsoagrees with this goaL (See Exhibit B to Huynh Declaration.)
3
Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time
Case No: CIV 489065
Preview
Lee J. Danforth, Esq. —SBN 73695 Carrie Dupic Huynh, Esq. —SBN 240252 CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH A Professional Corporation, Lawyers SA fLED HATED COU 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300 Redwood City, CA 94065-2133 N I 013 4 Telephone: (650) 592-5400 Facsimile: (650) 592-5027 Qle / I QuPerlor Court 5 OEPLllY OLRRK ATTORNEYS FOR Defendants FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND /r TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 11 MICHAELCHANG, an individual, Case No. CIV 489065 12 Plaintiff, 13 MEMORANDUMOF POINTS AND vs. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE 14 APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., TIME FOR NOTICE OF HEARING ON 15 FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS MOTION INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, reciprocal inter- Date: January 18, 2013 insurance exchanges; Does 1 to 99, Inclusive, Time: 2:00 p.m. 17 Dept.: Law & Motion Defendants. 18 Trial Date: April 8, 2013 20 Defendants Farmers Insurance Exchange and Truck Insurance Exchange ("defendants") 21 respectfully submit the following memorandum of points and authorities in support of their ex parte application for an order shortening time for notice of hearing on defendants'otion to continue trial. 23 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS 24 Trial is set for April 8, 2013, and defendants'ntend to bring a motion for a continuance of that 25 trial date, will all pre-trial deadlines running from the new trial date,. (Declaration of Carrie Dupic Huynh in Support of Ex Parte Application ("Huynh Declaration" ) at $ 2.) A motion will be necessary 27 because plaintiff's counsel previously advised defense counsel that plaintiff will oppose any request for 28 trial continuance. (Hu~ Declaration at $ 3.) 1 Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time Case No: CIV 489065 1 On January 17, 2013, at approximately 9:40 a.m., defense counsel telephoned one of plaintiff's 2 attorneys, Gregg Garrison, to request stipulation to an order shortening time for notice of the hearing 3 on defendants'lanned motion for trialcontinuance. (Id. at tt 4.) Mr. Garrison refused (Id), and 4 defense counsel therefore advised Mr. Garrison that defendants would make an ex parte request for an 5 order shortening time. (Id. at $ 5.) Then, at 9:55 a.m. that same day, defense counsel sent an e-mail to 6 both plaintiff's attorneys, Mr. Garrison and Herman Kalfen, providing full ex parte notice in 7 compliance with the California Rules of Court. (Id. at $ 6 and Exhibit A thereto.) 8 Later that evening, at 7:06 p.m., defense counsel received an e-mail from Mr. Garrison 9 regarding plaintiff's objections to defendants'lanned motion for trial continuance. (Huynh 10 Declaration attt 7 and Exhibit B thereto.) That e-mail makes no mention of defendants'lan to make 11 an ex parte request for an order shortening time pertaining to that motion. (Id) It is apparent that 12 plaintiff abhors the idea of any delay (justihed or not) in trying this case —in fact, at the beginning and 13 conclusion of his e-mail, Mr. Garrison states: "[t]ime is of the essence." (Huynh Declaration at $ 8.) 14 Defense counsel therefore infers, given that defendants will be 61ing a motion for trial continuance in 15 any event, that plaintiff, too, would prefer to resolve the merits of defendants'otion as soon as 16 possible. (Id) In this regard, the parties actually appear to be in agreement regarding the desirability of 17 an order shortening time (Id), such that one should be granted. 18 II. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR GRANTING AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME 19 Section 1005(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that a party usually be given at least 20 sixteen court days'otice of a hearing on a motion. However, subdivision (b) of that section also 21 allows that "[t]he court, or a judge thereof, may prescribe a shorter time." In addition, Rule 3.1300(b) 22 of the California Rules of Court states: "The court, on itsown motion or on application for an order 23 shortening time supported by a declaration showing good cause, may prescribe shorter times for the 24 61ing and service of papers than the time specified in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1005." 25 Here, good cause exists for this ex parte request because the trial date is fewer than three 26 months away and the parties desire to resolve the merits of defendants'equest to continue trial as soon 27 as possible. (See Discussion in Part I, above, and Huynh Declaration at tttt4, 7-8, and Exhibit B 28 thereto.) If defendants'otion were formally noticed on January 18, 2013 (the date of hearing on this 2 Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support OE Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time Case No: CIV 489065 1 ex parte application), it could not be heard until February 19, 2013, which would be little more than six 2 weeks before trial. (Huynh Declaration at $ 9.) One ground for continuing the trial date, which will be 3 articulated in defendants'otion for continuance, will be that additional time is needed to attempt 4 resolution of the insurance claims and other lawsuits underlying this case,'nd to conduct the complex 5 discovery that is necessary to prepare this case for trial. (Id. at f[ 10.) In view of these facts, a delayed 6 ruling on the motion for trial continuance would afford little practical beneht to the parties, counsel, 7 witnesses or the Court. (Id. at $11.) 8 By contrast, the sooner an order continuing trial is issued, the sooner this Court and the parties 9 may adjust their schedules, inform all witnesses and experts of the new trialdate and proceed with 10 negotiations, discovery and trial preparation. (Id. at f[ 12.) In summary, an expedited disposition of 11 defendants'otion will serve the interests of both parties (Id), and defendants are unaware of any 12 actual prejudice that would result to plaintiff by shortened notice and an accelerated brie6ng schedule 13 for the motion. (Id. at $ 13.) Allowing defendants'otion to be heard on shortened notice will serve . 14 the economy and convenience of the parties and the Court. Accordingly, there isgood cause for this 15 Court to issue an ex parte order shortening time for notice of hearing on a motion for trial continuance. 16 III. CONCLUSION -17 Based on the foregoing, good cause exists for an order shortening time for notice of hearing on 18 defendants'otion to continue trial. Accordingly, defendants request that the Court grant this request 19 and enter an order permitting defendants to file and serve their motion on shortened notice and 20 permitting an accelerated briefmg schedule. 21 Dated: January 18, 2013 CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH 23 24 Carrie Dupic Huyrdi Attorneys for Defendants 25 Farmers Insurance Exchange and Truck Insurance Exchange 26 27 28 'stensibly, plaintiffalsoagrees with this goaL (See Exhibit B to Huynh Declaration.) 3 Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time Case No: CIV 489065