On 09/15/2017 MARC SKIPWITH filed a Contract - Business Governance lawsuit against ALPINE INTERIORS CORPORATION, ET AT . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are NANCY L. NEWMAN and MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
NANCY L. NEWMAN
MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF
IRELAND JOHANNES VAN
ALPINE INTERIORS CORPORATION
ADLI LAW GROUP PC
VOSS JR. DAVID C.
SHERMAN DREW H.
SHERMAN DREW HARRIS
ADLI DARIUSH GHAFFAR
VOSS DAVID CRAIN JR
2/7/2018: Minute Order
3/29/2018: Minute Order
6/14/2018: Minute Order
9/13/2018: Proof of Personal Service
9/27/2018: Minute Order
1/16/2019: Minute Order
Demurrer - without Motion to Strike; Filed by ALPINE INTERIORS CORPORATION (Defendant); JOHANNES VAN IRELAND (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by MARC SKIPWITH (Cross-Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Amended Complaint; Filed by MARC SKIPWITH (Plaintiff); MARC SKIPWITH (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - HeldRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department M; Case Management Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike; Case Manageme...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike; Case Manageme...) of 01/16/2019); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Reply to Cross-Complainant's Opposition to Demurrer to First Amended Cross-Complaint; Filed by MARC SKIPWITH (Cross-Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Opposition (ALPINE INTERIORS OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT); Filed by ALPINE INTERIORS CORPORATION (Cross-Complainant)Read MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2018-01-16 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Management Statement; Filed by MARC SKIPWITH (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Statement-Case Management; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Declaration; Filed by ALPINE INTERIORS CORPORATION (Defendant); JOHANNES VAN IRELAND (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Declaration (OF DEMURRING PARTY IN SUPPORT OF AUTOMATIC EXTENSION ); Filed by Attorney for DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by MARC SKIPWITH (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Civil Case Cover SheetRead MoreRead Less
Complaint FiledRead MoreRead Less
Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: SC128107 Hearing Date: October 05, 2020 Dept: M
CASE NAME: Marc Skipwith v. Alpine Interiors Corp., et al.
CASE NO.: SC128107
MOTION: Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial and All Pre-trial Dates
HEARING DATE: 10/5/2020
DISCOVERY C/O: 9/13/2020
ORIGINAL TRIAL: 10/13/2020
In September 2018, Plaintiff Marc Skipwith, (“Plaintiff”) filed a verified third amended complaint against Defendant Alpine Interior Corporation, Johannes Van Ierland, and Does 1 -10 for (1) involuntary dissolution of corporation, (2) open book account, and (3) fraud. The original trial date was set for October 13, 2020. On August 6, 2020, Defendants filed a motion seeking a continuance of the trial date and all associated pretrial dates to at least 90 days from the dates set. This motion is unopposed.
On August 12, 2020, the Court, on its own motion, vacated the Jury Trial scheduled for October 13, 2020 and set the matter for a trial setting conference.
Granting or denying a continuance is within the Court’s discretion. (Schlothan v. Rusalem, (1953) 41 Cal.2d 414, 417.) Each request for a continuance is considered on its own merits. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) However, “there is no right to a continuance as a matter of law.” (Fisher v. Larsen, (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 627, 648.) The Court will only grant a continuance when the moving party has affirmatively established that good cause exists. (Ibid.)
The general discovery deadline is 30 days before the trial date. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020.) The expert witness discovery deadline is 15 days before the trial date. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.030.)
Defendants argue that good cause exists to continue all pretrial dates. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include, “(6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.” (CRC Rule 1332(c) (6) & (7).). Defendants request a continuance of at all associated pretrial dates to at least 90 days from the dates set.
All pretrial deadlines were computed based on the October 13, 2020 trial date. Defendants request a continuance to complete discovery. Defendants argue that they have been unable to respond to discovery because Johannes Van Ierland was stuck in Germany caring for his ill mother due the coronavirus pandemic. Under CRC Rule 3.1332(c)(6), there is good cause to continue trial when a party makes an affirmative showing that there has been an excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts. Defendants argue that the earliest date that Van Ierland would be able to return was August 17, 2020. Sherman, Defendants’ counsel, explains that he has had limited communication with Van Ierland after Van Ierland left to take care of his mother. Sherman also notes that responsive documents to Plaintiff’s requests for production are in a secure location that can only be accessed by Van Ierland. (See Sherman Decl. ¶¶ 8-12.)
The Court finds that Defendants have made an affirmative showing of good cause to issue a continuance of all pretrial dates.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial and all Related Dates is GRANTED. The new trial date will be set at the TSC. All pretrial discovery dates will follow the new trial date.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases