On 09/28/2016 BRAD WAISBREN filed a Property - Other Eviction lawsuit against HEGER INDUSTRIAL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
THORNBURGH ROBERT G.
HEGER REALTY CORPORATION
DOES 1 THROUGH 50
INVESTMENT PROPERTIES SERVICES INC.
PARAMOUNT INDUSTRIAL PARK [DOE 4]
KIDDER MATHEWS OF CALIFORNIA INC.
INVESTMENT PROPERTY SERVICES [DOE 3]
DEGRAVE DOUGLAS M.
FRIEDENTHAL DANIEL RAY
ISAACS BARAK ESQ.
YASSIN OMAR J.
KEARNEY THOMAS JOSEPH
DEGRAVE DOUGLAS M
BALANGUE APRIL CORTEZ
5/10/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT (FICTITIOUS NAME) SUBSTITUTION OF ?INVESTMENT PROPERTY SERVICES A BUSINESS ENTITY, FORM UNKNOWN? FOR DOE 3; ORDER
5/10/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT (FICTITIOUS NAME) SUBSTITUTION OF ?SCOTT DORSEY, AN INDIVIDUAL? FOR DOE 2; ORDER
6/25/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION; MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF MARCI HIGER'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO JUDICIAL COUNCIL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO (NO. 17.1), REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE SUM OF $2,060; MEMORANDUM OF
6/25/2018: DECLARATION OF APRIL C. BALANGUE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF MARCI HIGER'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO JUDICIAL COUNCIL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE SUM OF
8/9/2018: Minute Order
9/10/2018: DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITEED BY PLAINTIFFS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR ADJUDICATION
9/11/2018: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
9/17/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
9/18/2018: DECLARATION OF BRAD WAISBREN IN OPPOSITION TO PARAMOUNT INDUSTRIAL PARK AND SCOTIE DORSEY?S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT
9/20/2018: DEFENDANT PARAMOUNT INDUSTRIAL PARK AND SCOTT DORSEY'S NOTICE OF EX PARTE AND NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITIONS OF PLAINTIFFS WAISBREN AND HIGER; OR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME IN
9/20/2018: NOTICE OF RULING
2/22/2019: Notice of Ruling
9/28/2016: COMPLAINT FOR: (1) CONVERSION, ETC
11/14/2016: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
11/23/2016: NOTICE OF MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO C.C.P. ?425.16 - ANTI-SLAPP MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
2/17/2017: DECLARATION OF BRAD WAISBREN RE: MEET AND CONFER PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 430.41(A)(2)
Notice (of Trial And Trial Related Dates Scheduling Order); Filed by Scott Dorsey (Defendant); PARAMOUNT INDUSTRIAL PARK [DOE 4] (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Case Management Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Case Management Order; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) (to the Second Amended Complaint); Filed by Scott Dorsey (Defendant); PARAMOUNT INDUSTRIAL PARK [DOE 4] (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Motion to Strike (not initial pleading); Filed by Scott Dorsey (Defendant); PARAMOUNT INDUSTRIAL PARK [DOE 4] (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Second Amended Complaint; Filed by Marci Higer (Plaintiff); Brad Waisbren (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling on the Motion for Leave to File [Proposed] Second Amended Complaint; Filed by Marci Higer (Plaintiff); Brad Waisbren (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Request for Refund / Order; Filed by Victor Solomon (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Hearing on Motion for Leave (To File Second Amended Complaint) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARINGRead MoreRead Less
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARINGRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR: (1) CONVERSION, ETCRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Brad Waisbren (Plaintiff); Marci Higer (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:32 AM in Department Legacy; Unknown eventRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC635516 Hearing Date: January 31, 2020 Dept: 37
HEARING DATE: January 31, 2020
CASE NUMBER: BC635516
CASE NAME: Brad Waisbren, an individual, et al. v. Heger Industrial, a business entity, form unknown, et al.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Brad Waisbren and Marci Higer
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants, Heger Industrial, Heger Realty Corporation, Thomas Holland and Paramount Industrial Park
TRIAL DATE: November 17, 2020
PROOF OF SERVICE: OK
MOTION: Motion to Reopen Discovery After New Trial Date
OPPOSITION: January 15, 2020 (Paramount Industrial Park), January 17, 2020 (Heger Industrial, Heger Realty and Thomas Holland)
REPLY: January 24, 2020
TENTATIVE: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reopen Discovery is DENIED. Heger Defendants are to provide notice.
This action arises out of a landlord-tenant dispute that has been summarized in numerous prior orders
By its case management order filed January 12, 2017, this case was set for trial was October 22, 2018, and thereafter discovery was cutoff pursuant to CCP section 2024.020.
Plaintiffs now move for an order reopening discovery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 2024.050. The Heger Defendants and Paramount Defendants both oppose the motion.
Any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020(a).)
On motion of any party, the court may allow discovery proceedings to be completed or a discovery motion to be heard after the “cutoff” above.¿ Alternatively, it may reopen discovery after the trial has been continued to a new date.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050(a); see Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1588.) “This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (a).)
In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery.
(2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier.
(3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party.
(4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050(b).) The court shall impose sanctions pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes this motion for leave, unless the party acted with substantial justification.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050(c).
As indicated above the first date set for trial was October 22, 2018.
Accordingly, based on an October 22, 2018 trial date, the original discovery cut-off would have been September 22, 2018. Thereafter, the October 22, 2018 trial date was vacated, but no orders were issued vacating the discovery cutoff.
Upon a review of the docket, the court finds no evidence that the trial date was re-set until June, 2019, at which time it was set for November 17, 2020. Further, although Plaintiffs contend that the Court alleged instructed one or both of them to file a motion to reopen the trial date in “August 2019,” the Court really refused to entertain an oral motion to reopen discovery and indicated that a notice motion would be required for the court to consider the issue.
Plaintiffs also submit their own declarations in support of the instant motion. Plaintiff Brad Waisbren (“Waisbren”) attests that he was instructed by the Court to file a Motion to Reopen Discovery. (Waisbren Decl. ¶ 8.) Waisbren attests that he has exchanged “some discovery” with the Heger Defendants. (Waisbren Decl. ¶ 11.) He further attests that he would like to serve written discovery, taken depositions, and serve subpoenas on “all Defendants” as well as to “third parties.” (Waisbren Decl. ¶ 12.) Further, Weisbren contends that the added Doe Defendants “came too late for me to conduct proper discovery prior to the vacated trial schedule.” (Waisbren Decl. ¶ 23.) Plaintiff Marci Higer makes almost identical contentions in her declarations. Further, both plaintiffs contend that they spoke to counsel for defendants “on several occasions” and that counsel for defendants indicated that they would stipulate to reopen discovery. (see Marci Higer Decl. ¶ ¶ 28-29.)
The Paramount Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because they have provided no explanation for why discovery should be re-opened and have shown no diligence in prosecuting this action. (Paramount Opposition, 4-6.)
Similarly, the Heger Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied because they have failed to provide a sufficient explanation for why discovery should be re-opened. (Heger Opposition, 2-4.) The Heger Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs did not serve notices of deposition prior to expiration of the discovery cut-off date and did not serve any discovery on the newly added defendants until the expiration of the discovery cut-off date. (Opposition, 3.)
All the Doe defendants were added before or by May 2018. Thus, Plaintiffs had time to conduct discovery before the cutoff. Plaintiffs’ now argue that discovery should be re-opened because that would allegedly benefit both parties and that more discovery is necessary for Plaintiffs to prepare their case against the recently added Doe defendants. However, both the Paramount Defendants and Heger Defendants oppose reopening discovery, so they apparently believe that reopening discovery would not be beneficial to them. Further, Plaintiffs were the parties who decided to name new Doe defendants close to the original trial date and, as such, should have planned to obtain discovery from them in a timely fashion, if at all. Accordingly, none of Plaintiffs’ contentions provide sufficient grounds for the Court to reopen discovery.
The court agrees with Defendants and denies Plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiffs’ motion to reopen discovery is DENIED.