This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/23/2021 at 06:27:44 (UTC).

BRAD HERMAN VS MICHAEL GOLAND

Case Summary

On 12/31/2018 BRAD HERMAN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MICHAEL GOLAND. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******5276

  • Filing Date:

    12/31/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

HERMAN BRAD

Los Angeles, CA 90049

Defendant

GOLAND MICHAEL

Not Classified By Court

CHRISTOPHER OSUNA

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial)

11/10/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial) of 11/10/2021

11/10/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial) of 11/10/2021

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial)

10/26/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial) of 10/26/2021

10/26/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial) of 10/26/2021

Motion to Continue Trial Date - Motion to Continue Trial Date

9/23/2021: Motion to Continue Trial Date - Motion to Continue Trial Date

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial; Order to Show Cause Re: ...)

8/17/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial; Order to Show Cause Re: ...)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial; Order to Show Cause Re: ...) of 08/17/2021

8/17/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial; Order to Show Cause Re: ...) of 08/17/2021

Response (name extension) - Response to OSC: Re Amended Complaint

8/12/2021: Response (name extension) - Response to OSC: Re Amended Complaint

Motion to Continue Trial Date - Motion to Continue Trial Date

7/20/2021: Motion to Continue Trial Date - Motion to Continue Trial Date

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

7/20/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 07/23/2021

7/23/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 07/23/2021

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

7/23/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for an order to shorten time)

8/14/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for an order to shorten time)

Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application for an order to shorten time

8/14/2020: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application for an order to shorten time

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for a ruling to consolidate r...) of 09/17/2020

9/17/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for a ruling to consolidate r...) of 09/17/2020

Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application for a ruling to consolidate related cases

9/17/2020: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application for a ruling to consolidate related cases

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for a ruling to consolidate r...)

9/17/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for a ruling to consolidate r...)

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

11/5/2020: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

25 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/16/2022
  • Hearing05/16/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2022
  • Hearing01/03/2022 at 10:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/16/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial) of 11/10/2021; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Continue Trial scheduled for 11/10/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 11/10/2021; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2021
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 05/16/2022 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Continue Trial scheduled for 11/10/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Court Order Re: Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial) of 10/26/2021; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
61 More Docket Entries
  • 12/31/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Brad Herman (Plaintiff); As to: Michael Goland (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/03/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2018
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Brad Herman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2018
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Brad Herman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Brad Herman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2018
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/29/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: 18STLC15276 Hearing Date: November 10, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND TO RECLASSIFY JURISDICTION\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Brad Herman, in\r\npro per

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL OR FOR\r\nRECLASSIFICATION

\r\n\r\n

(CRC,\r\nRule 3.1332; CCP § 403.040)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Brad\r\nHerman’s Motion to Continue Trial Date and to Reclassify Jurisdiction is\r\nDENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC,\r\nrule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)\r\n OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None\r\nfiled as of November 8, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None\r\nfiled as of November 8, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On December 31, 2018,\r\nself-represented Plaintiff Brad Herman (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against\r\nDefendant Michael Goland (“Defendant”). Trial was initially scheduled for June\r\n29, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff filed a notice of related\r\ncase for this action and small claims case, Michael Goland v. Osanu, et al.,\r\nCase No. 18PDSC03415 (the “Small Claims Case”) on April 29, 2019. On May 9, the\r\nCourt deemed this case and the Small Claims Case related and designated this\r\ncase as the lead action. (5/9/19 Minute Order.) The Small Claims Case was filed\r\nby Defendant against Plaintiff, Chris Osanu (“Osanu”), and Nataly Portobanco\r\n(“Portobanco”). Osanu and Portobanco have not yet appeared.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Due to COVID-19 pandemic-related\r\ncourt closures, the June 29, 2020 trial was rescheduled to April 27, 2021. (5/19/20\r\nMinute Order.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On September 17, 2020, the Court\r\ndenied Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a ruling to consolidate the related\r\ncases due to a failure to show irreparable harm or immediate danger and failure\r\nto cite any statutory basis for granting ex parte relief. (9/17/20 Minute\r\nOrder.) After entertaining an oral motion to consolidate the cases, pursuant to\r\nCode of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (a), the Court granted the\r\nrequest and designated this case as the lead action. (Id.) On its own\r\nmotion, the Court rescheduled the trial date from April 27, 2021 to January 15,\r\n2021. (Id.) The Court also ordered Plaintiff to file a proof of service\r\nwith the Court as soon as possible and ordered Defendant to file an answer\r\nwithin thirty (30) days of that order. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On November 5, 2020, Defendant\r\nfiled an Answer, in pro per.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant filed an ex parte\r\napplication to allow a cross-complaint to be amended, which the Court granted\r\non January 6. (1/6/21 Minute Order.) This application, however, appeared to be\r\na request to allow the filing of an initial cross-complaint as there was no\r\ncross-complaint in the Court’s file which could be amended. On its own motion,\r\nthe Court also rescheduled the trial date from January 15, 2021 to September\r\n20, 2021. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant\r\nfiled a motion to continue the trial date and to reclassify the action on July\r\n20, 2021. On August 17, the Court denied Defendant’s request to reclassify the\r\naction but granted his request for a trial continuance. (8/17/21 Minute Order.)\r\nThe trial was rescheduled to December 8, 2021 with motion and discovery dates\r\nto follow the new date. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff\r\nfiled the instant Motion to Continue Trial Date and Reclassify Jurisdiction (the\r\n“Motion”) on September 23, 2021. The Motion was set for hearing for October 27.\r\nOn October 26, the Court noted the Motion had not been properly scheduled in the\r\nCourt’s calendar and continued it to November 10. (10/26/21 Minute Order.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

To date, no\r\nopposition has been filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal Standard & Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A. Reclassification

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff seeks reclassification of this action from limited\r\nto unlimited jurisdiction or, in the alternative, requests that the trial date\r\nbe continued. (Mot., p. 2.) Plaintiff argues that, pursuant to Code of Civil\r\nProcedure section “430, et seq.,” the Court has the inherent power and duty to\r\nreclassify a case from limited to unlimited jurisdiction upon petition. (Id.\r\nat p. 3.) Plaintiff did not cite any specific statute or quote any relevant\r\nstatutory authority for his request.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040 allows a\r\nplaintiff to file a motion for reclassification of an action within the time\r\nallowed for that party to amend the initial pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., §\r\n403.040, subd. (a).) “A party may amend its pleading once without leave of court\r\nat any time before an answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after\r\na demurrer or motion to strike is filed if the amended pleading is filed and\r\nserved no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or\r\nmotion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a).) “The court shall grant\r\nthe motion and enter an order for reclassification, regardless of any lack of\r\nfault, if the case has been classified in an incorrect jurisdictional\r\nclassification.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

If the motion is made after the time for the plaintiff to\r\namend the pleading, the motion may only be granted if (1) the case is\r\nincorrectly classified; and (2) the plaintiff shows good cause for not seeking\r\nreclassification earlier. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (b).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262, the California\r\nSupreme Court held that a matter may be reclassified from unlimited to limited\r\nonly if it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff's damages will\r\nnecessarily be less than $25,000. (Walker\r\nv. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257.) If there is a possibility that the\r\ndamages will exceed $25,000.00, the case cannot be transferred to limited. (Ibid.) This high standard is appropriate\r\nin light of “the circumscribed procedures and recovery available in the limited\r\ncivil courts.” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court\r\n(2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278.)\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In Ytuarte, the Court of Appeals examined the principles it set forth\r\nin Walker and held that “the court\r\nshould reject the plaintiff's effort to reclassify the action as unlimited only\r\nwhen the lack of jurisdiction as an “unlimited” case is certain and clear.”\r\n(Id. at 279.) (Emphasis added.) Nevertheless, the plaintiff must present\r\nevidence to demonstrate a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00\r\nand the trial court must review the record to determine “whether a judgment in\r\nexcess of $25,000.00 is obtainable.” (Ibid.)\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, Plaintiff explains\r\nthe Court heard and denied Defendant Goland’s motion for reclassification on\r\nAugust 13, 2021. (Mot., p. 3.) Plaintiff argues he supported that request as\r\nPlaintiff’s current damages plus interest exceed the jurisdictional limit of\r\nthis court. (Id.) He further argues he did not delay in bringing this\r\nMotion as he believed Defendant could file such a motion. (Id at p. 4.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

First, the $25,000.00\r\njurisdictional limit is exclusive of interest. (Code Civ. Proc., § 85, subd.\r\n(a).) In addition, Plaintiff has not specified what his damages are and has not\r\nsubmitted any evidence, not even a declaration, demonstrating an award of over\r\n$25,000.00 is possible.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff states\r\nreclassification was not sought earlier because he believed Defendant could\r\nfile a request to do so and it was only after “this Court would not entertain\r\nsaid motion from Defendant, that it became incumbent on Plaintiff to bring the\r\nMotion to reclassify.” (Mot., p. 4.) At the August 17 hearing, the Court noted\r\nthat Defendant sought reclassification because the “complaint” sought damages\r\nabove the jurisdictional limit of this Court, that Defendant appeared to have\r\nattempted to file a cross-complaint, which sought over $250,000.00 in damages, titled\r\n“First-Amended Complaint,” that only Plaintiff could file a first amended\r\ncomplaint, and that Defendant was under the mistaken impression his pleadings\r\nwere accepted and filed when they were, in fact, rejected. (8/17/21 Minute\r\nOrder; 7/20/21 (Rejected) Amended Complaint; 7/23/21 Minute Order.) However,\r\nthe Court’s orders do not state a motion for reclassification from Defendant\r\nwould not be entertained. Notably, Defendant has not yet properly filed any\r\ncross-complaint.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In any case, Plaintiff’s Motion\r\nlacks any details regarding when Plaintiff discovered reclassification was\r\nnecessary. Thus, the Court cannot find good cause exists for not seeking\r\nreclassification earlier.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Because Plaintiff has\r\nnot demonstrated good cause or that an award of over $25,000.00 is possible,\r\nPlaintiff’s request to reclassify is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

C. Trial Continuance

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks a trial continuance if\r\nthe Court doesn’t reclassify the action. (Mot., p. 3.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request\r\nfor a continuance must be considered on its own merits. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c).) The Court may grant a continuance only on an\r\naffirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (Id.)\r\nThe Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial\r\ncontinuance is warranted: (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there\r\nwas any previous continuance of trial due to any party; (3) the length of the\r\ncontinuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the\r\nproblem that gave rise to the motion; (5) the prejudice that parties or\r\nwitnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial\r\ncounsel is engaged in another trial. (See generally, Cal. Rules of Court, rule\r\n3.1332, subd. (d)(1)-(11).) Additionally, factors for the\r\nCourt to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential\r\ntestimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; the\r\nproximity of the trial date; whether all parties have stipulated to a\r\ncontinuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair\r\ndetermination of the motion or application. \r\n(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c), (d).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff has not demonstrated good\r\ncause exists for a trial continuance. Without citing any authority and without\r\ndiscussing any of the factors listed above, Plaintiff simply argues the trial\r\nshould be continued to “sometime in the February timeframe” if the request for\r\nreclassification is denied. (Mot., p. 4.) The Court does not find the denial to\r\nreclassify justifies a continuance. No other reason is offered to justify\r\nPlaintiff’s request. Notably, the trial date in this action has been changed\r\nfour times, most recently on August 17 at Defendant’s request. (8/17/21 Minute\r\nOrder.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated any good reason\r\nexists for a continuance, his request is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nConclusion & Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Based on the\r\nforegoing, Plaintiff Brad Herman’s Motion to Continue Trial Date and to\r\nReclassify Jurisdiction is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is\r\nordered to give notice.

\r\n\r\n

"b'

Case Number: 18STLC15276 Hearing Date: August 17, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND TO RECLASSIFY JURISDICTION\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Michael Goland

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

\r\n\r\n

(CRC,\r\nRule 3.1332)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant\r\nMichael Goland’s request to reclassify the action is DENIED. However, his\r\nrequest for a trial continuance is GRANTED. Trial is scheduled for NOVEMBER 2,\r\n2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Motion and\r\ndiscovery cut-off dates are to follow the new trial date.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC,\r\nrule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)\r\n OK

\r\n\r\n

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c,\r\n1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None\r\nfiled as of August 13, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None\r\nfiled as of August 13, 2021 [ ]\r\nLate [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On December 31, 2018,\r\nself-represented Plaintiff Brad Herman (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against\r\nDefendant Michael Goland (“Defendant”). Trial was initially scheduled for June\r\n29, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the\r\nCourt, on its own motion, rescheduled the trial for April 27, 2021. (5/19/20\r\nMinute Order.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On September 17, 2020, the Court\r\nconsolidated this case and Case No. 18PDSC03415, Goland v. Osanu.\r\n(9/17/20 Minute Order.) The Court also ordered Defendant to file an answer\r\nwithin thirty (30) days. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On November 5, Defendant filed an\r\nAnswer, in pro per.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant filed an ex parte\r\napplication for permission to file a cross-complaint on January 5, 2021. On\r\nJanuary 6, the Court granted the application and also continued the trial to\r\nSeptember 20, 2021 on its own motion. (1/6/21 Minute Order.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On July 20, 2021, Defendant filed a\r\n“First Amended Complaint,” which was rejected by the Court. (7/23/21 Minute\r\nOrder.) That same day, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Continue Trial\r\nDate and to Reclassify Jurisdiction (the “Motion”).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

No opposition has been filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal Standard & Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request\r\nfor a continuance must be considered on its own merits. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c).) The Court may grant a continuance only on an\r\naffirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (Id.) The Court may look to the following\r\nfactors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted: (1) proximity\r\nof the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance of trial due\r\nto any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability\r\nof alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion; (5)\r\nthe prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the\r\ncontinuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial. (See\r\ngenerally, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (d)(1)-(11).) Additionally, factors for the\r\nCourt to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential\r\ntestimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; the\r\nproximity of the trial date; whether all parties have stipulated to a\r\ncontinuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair\r\ndetermination of the motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule\r\n3.1332(c), (d).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant first argues that the matter should be\r\nreclassified because the complaint seeks damages above the jurisdictional limit\r\nof this Court. (Mot., pp. 3-4.) Although it appears that Defendant attempted to\r\nfile a cross-complaint, his pleadings were rejected because, instead of filing\r\na cross-complaint, Defendant attempted to file a first amended\r\ncomplaint, which only Plaintiff can do. Notably, it appears Defendant is\r\nunder the mistaken impression his pleadings were accepted and filed. (Id.)\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In the alternative, Defendant requests that the September 20\r\ntrial date be continued because it conflicts with the Jewish holiday of Sukkos.\r\n(Mot., p. 4.) Defendant also includes a declaration from Plaintiff agreeing\r\nthat trial should be rescheduled on a date after October 15, 2021 to avoid\r\nconflicts with the Jewish holiday. (Id., Herman Decl., ¶¶ 4.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court finds good cause exists for continuing trial on\r\nthis matter. Not only does the current trial date conflict with both parties’\r\nreligious holidays, but Defendant appears to need additional time to refile,\r\nand possibly make revisions, to his cross-complaint. Once refiled, Defendant\r\nwill likely need time to conduct discovery on his cross-claims.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Thus, Defendant’s request for a trial continuance is\r\nGRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nConclusion & Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Based on the\r\nforegoing, Defendant Michael Goland’s request to reclassify the action is\r\nDENIED. However, his request for a trial continuance is GRANTED. Trial is\r\nscheduled for NOVEMBER 2, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING\r\nSTREET COURTHOUSE. Motion and discovery cut-off dates are to follow the new\r\ntrial date.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\nMoving party is ordered to give notice. '