VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC VS ALEXANDER BRADLEY

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 17CHLC00490    Hearing Date: March 23, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., March 23, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Video Symphony, LLC v. Bradley COMPL. FILED: 08-01-17

CASE NUMBER: 17CHLC00490 DISC. C/O: 05-31-21

NOTICE: OK DISC. MOT. C/O: 06-15-21

PROCEEDINGS: (1) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER

(2) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Alexander Bradley

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Video Symphony, LLC

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

(CCP § 473(a))

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

(1) Defendant Alexander Bradley’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to file his second amended answer within ten (10) days of notice of this order.

(2) In light of the new evidence presented in Defendant’s reply papers, and to provide Plaintiff an opportunity to respond, the Motion for Summary Judgment or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication is CONTINUED TO MAY 19, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Plaintiff must file and serve any responsive papers at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing. No further briefing is permitted.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 75/80 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b)) OK

Motion to Leave to Amend

OPPOSITION: None filed as of March 19, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of March 19, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

Motion for Summary Judgment

OPPOSITION: Filed on March 9, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on March 18, 2021 [X] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On August 1, 2017, Plaintiff Video Symphony, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract and common counts against Defendant Alexander Bradley (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer on February 1, 2019 and a First Amended Answer on January 22, 2020.

On January 4, 2021, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (the “MSJ”). Plaintiff filed an Opposition on March 9, and Defendant filed a late Reply on March 18, 2021.

Defendant also filed the instant Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer (the “Motion for Leave”) on February 1, 2021. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

1. Motion for Leave to Amend

A. Legal Standard

Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . ..” “Although courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . .. [citation]. A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.)

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)

B. Discussion

Defendant seeks to amend his Answer by adding an eleventh affirmative defense for violation of the Unruh Act and include additional allegations for his current tenth affirmative defense. (Mot. for Leave, pp. 4:25-5:7.) Defendant submitted a copy of its Second Amended Answer with its Motion and identified the pages and line numbers where the proposed changes are located. (Id., Hill Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, Exh. 1.) Defendant’s counsel explains he became aware a defense based on the Unruh Act could be asserted as it has in many other similar cases involving Plaintiff and the defunct corporation, Video Symphony EnterTaining, Inc. (Id. at ¶ 2.)

Notably, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition arguing it would be prejudiced by Defendant’s proposed amendment.

Thus, Defendant’s request is GRANTED. Defendant’s amended answered is to be filed within ten (10) days of this order.

1. Motion for Summary Judgment

A. Legal Standard

A party seeking summary judgment has the burden of producing evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle him/her to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153.) The moving party must make an affirmative showing that he/she is entitled to judgment irrespective of whether or not the opposing party files an opposition. (Villa v. McFerren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733.)

When a Defendant or Cross-Defendant seeks summary judgment, he/she must show either (1) that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established; or (2) that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) When a Plaintiff or Cross-Complainant seeks summary judgment, he/she must produce admissible evidence on each element of each cause of action on which judgment is sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) The moving party’s “affidavits must cite evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions or ‘ultimate’ facts” and be strictly construed. (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519; Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 639.)

The opposing party on a motion for summary judgment is under no evidentiary burden to produce rebuttal evidence until the moving party meets his or her initial movant’s burden. (Binder v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832.) Once the initial movant’s burden is met, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to show, with admissible evidence, that there is a triable issue requiring the weighing procedures of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p).) The opposing party may not simply rely on his/her allegations to show a triable issue but must present evidentiary facts that are substantial in nature and rise beyond mere speculation. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151.) As to any alternative request for summary adjudication of issues, such alternative relief must be clearly set forth in the Notice of Motion and the general burden-shifting rules apply but the issues upon which summary adjudication may be sought are limited by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).)

B. Discussion

Defendant seeks summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication of the following: (1) that Plaintiff’s first cause of action for breach of contract is barred by the applicable four-year statute of limitations; (2) that Plaintif’s second cause of action for common counts is barred by the applicable four-year statute of limitations; or (3) that the contract upon which Plaintiff’s action is based violated the Unruh Act and thus, Plaintiff is at best entitled to the principal sum at issue. (MSJ, p. i:25-ii:15.)

Before addressing the merits of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court notes Defendant filed additional evidence in its Reply papers. Although a trial court may consider evidence presented in its reply papers, it may do so only when the opposing party had notice and an opportunity to respond to the new evidence. (Jacobs v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 438, 449.) Here, Defendant filed his Reply papers and new evidence only three court days before this hearing.

Thus, the hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment is CONTINUED to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to respond to the newly presented evidence in Defendant’s late reply. No further briefing is permitted.

1. Conclusion & Order

(1) Defendant Alexander Bradley’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to file his second amended answer within ten (10) days of notice of this order.

(2) In light of the new evidence presented in Defendant’s reply papers, and to provide Plaintiff an opportunity to respond, the Motion for Summary Judgment or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication is CONTINUED TO MAY 19, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Plaintiff must file and serve any responsive papers at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing. No further briefing is permitted.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 17CHLC00490    Hearing Date: October 27, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:    Tue., October 27, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Video Symphony, LLC v. Bradley COMP. FILED: 08-01-17

CASE NUMBER: 17CHLC00490 DISC. C/O: NOT SET

NOTICE:   OK MOTION C/O: NOT SET

PROCEEDINGS:     MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC’S FURTHER RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Alexander Bradley

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Video Symphony, LLC

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES & REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2030.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Alexander Bradley’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff’s Further Response to Interrogatories is DENIED. The parties’ requests for sanctions are also DENIED.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

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

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on July 5, 2019 [   ] Late [   ] None

REPLY: Filed on July 10, 2019 [   ] Late [   ] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On August 1, 2017, Plaintiff Video Symphony, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract and common counts against Defendant Alexander Bradley (“Defendant”). On February 1, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

On June 14, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions (the “Motion”). On July 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Opposition and on July 10, 2019, Defendant filed a Reply. The Motion was initially set for hearing for July 18, 2019. On July 18, 2019, the court found this case was not a collections case and was therefore transferred from Department F43 at the Chatsworth Courthouse to this civil limited jurisdiction department. (7/18/19 Minute Order.) Department F43 also vacated the original trial date of August 23, 2019. (Id.) No new trial date has been set.

At the initial hearing on March 2, 2020, the Court noted it needed additional time to review the parties’ moving and opposing papers, and continued the hearing to May 6, 2020. (3/2/20 Minute Order.) On April 16, 2020, the Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing to August 27, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (4/16/20 Notice re Continuance of Hearing and Order.)

On August 27, 2020, after hearing oral argument from both sides, the Court did not adopt its tentative ruling and ordered the parties to file supplemental papers at least 16 court days before the next hearing date. (8/27/20 Minute Order.) To date, neither party has filed any supplemental papers.

1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Discovery Cut-off

“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30^th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15^th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).) A continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (b).)

As noted above, when this case was transferred from Department F43, the original trial date of August 23, 2019 was vacated. While no new trial date has been set, discovery is now closed based on the initial trial date. The initial trial date of August 23, 2019 required the parties to complete their discovery by July 24, 2019 and to have any discovery motion heard by August 8, 2019. Neither party has asked this Court to re-open discovery.

In Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1588, the Court of Appeal held that, “[b]y simply hearing the motion to compel without first deciding whether discovery should be reopened for that purpose under all of the relevant circumstances, the trial court ‘transgresse[d] the confines of the applicable principles of law’…and thereby abused its discretion.”

Because discovery is now closed, it would be an abuse of discretion for this Court to consider the Motion, and it is therefore DENIED.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Alexander Bradley’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff’s Further Response to Interrogatories is DENIED. The parties’ requests for sanctions are also DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 17CHLC00490    Hearing Date: August 27, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., August 27, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Video Symphony, LLC v. Bradley COMP. FILED: 08-01-17

CASE NUMBER: 17CHLC00490 DISC. C/O: NOT SET

NOTICE: OK MOTION C/O: NOT SET

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF VIDEO SYMPHONY, LLC’S FURTHER RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Alexander Bradley

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Video Symphony, LLC

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES & REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2030.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Alexander Bradley’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff’s Further Response to Interrogatories is DENIED. The parties’ requests for sanctions are also DENIED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

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

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on July 5, 2019 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on July 10, 2019 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On August 1, 2017, Plaintiff Video Symphony, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract and common counts against Defendant Alexander Bradley (“Defendant”). On February 1, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

On June 14, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions (the “Motion”). On July 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Opposition and on July 10, 2019, Defendant filed a Reply. The Motion was initially set for hearing for July 18, 2019. On July 18, 2019, the court found that this case was not a collections case and was therefore transferred from Department F43 at the Chatsworth Courthouse to this civil limited jurisdiction department. (7/18/19 Minute Order.) Department F43 also vacated the original trial date of August 23, 2019. (Id.) No new trial date has been set.

At the initial hearing on March 2, 2020, the Court noted it needed additional time to review the parties’ moving and opposing papers, and continued the hearing to May 6, 2020. (3/2/20 Minute Order.) On April 16, 2020, the Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing to August 27, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (4/16/20 Notice re Continuance of Hearing and Order.)

1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Discovery Cut-off

“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30^th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15^th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).) A continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (b).)

As noted above, when this case was transferred from Department F43, the original trial date of August 23, 2019 was vacated. While no new trial date has been set, discovery is now closed based on the initial trial date. The initial trial date of August 23, 2019 required the parties to complete their discovery by July 24, 2019 and to have any discovery motion heard by August 8, 2019. Neither party has asked this Court to re-open discovery.

In Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1588, the Court of Appeal held that, “[b]y simply hearing the motion to compel without first deciding whether discovery should be reopened for that purpose under all of the relevant circumstances, the trial court ‘transgresse[d] the confines of the applicable principles of law’…and thereby abused its discretion.”

Because discovery is now closed, it would be an abuse of discretion for this Court to consider the Motion, and it is therefore DENIED.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Alexander Bradley’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff’s Further Response to Interrogatories is DENIED. The parties’ requests for sanctions are also DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 17CHLC00490    Hearing Date: March 02, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES & REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2030.300)

OPPOSITION: Filed on July 5, 2019

REPLY: Filed on July 10, 2019

DISCUSSION:

The Court is taking additional time to review the parties’ moving and opposing papers. On the Court’s own motion, the Motion to Compel Further Responses and Request for Sanctions is CONTINUED TO MAY 6, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

Counsel need not appear at the hearing set previously for Monday, March 2, 2020.

Moving party ordered to give notice.