On 10/13/2017 PATRICIA QUAN filed a Contract - Professional Negligence lawsuit against JAY BELSHAW. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK
DOES 1 TO 10
KAHN ROBERT A. ESQ.
O'MEARA FRANCES MARY
HIROTA MICHAEL NORIO
3/13/2018: DEFENDANT JAY BELSHAW'S NOTICE OF POSTING OF JURY FEES
3/14/2018: Minute Order
3/14/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
3/16/2018: NOTICE OF RULING RE 3/14/18 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
12/20/2018: Minute Order
12/20/2018: Ex Parte Application
5/9/2019: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)
1/16/2018: NOTICE OF RULING RE 1/11/18 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
1/11/2018: Minute Order
12/26/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
10/13/2017: COMPLAFNT FOR DAMAGES FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE
[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Patricia Quan (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 09:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Post-Mediation Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling; Filed by Jay Belshaw (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Ex-Parte ProceedingsRead MoreRead Less
Stipulation for Continuance of Trial Date and Related Dates; Filed by Jay Belshaw (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Ex Parte Application (to Continue Trial and all Trial Related Dates); Filed by Jay Belshaw (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Minute Order ((DEFENDANT JAY BELSHAW'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIA...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF RULING RE 3/14/18 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2018-01-11 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Management Statement; Filed by Patricia Quan (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENTRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Patricia Quan (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
CIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Patricia Quan (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAFNT FOR DAMAGES FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICERead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC679065 Hearing Date: November 26, 2019 Dept: 47
Patricia Quan v. Jay Belshaw, et al.
MOTION TO ADVANCE TRIAL DATE
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Patricia Quan
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Jay Belshaw
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant committed legal malpractice when he prepared a will as to which Plaintiff was intended to be a beneficiary.
Plaintiff now moves to advance the trial date.
Plaintiff Patricia Quan’s motion to advance the trial date is DENIED.
Motion To Advance Trial Date
Plaintiff moves to advance the trial date on the ground that the parties originally requested a continuance because a pending probate matter first had to conclude, and now that it has, a continuance is no longer necessary.
A request to advance a case for trial “may be granted only upon an affirmative showing by the moving party of good cause based on a declaration served and filed with the motion or application.” (CRC 3.1335(b).)
Plaintiff has shown no good cause here. Indeed, it’s not even close.
Plaintiff has also neglected to mention that the request for continuance that resulted in the August 2020 trial date was the second time the parties had requested a continuance. Trial was originally set for February 25, 2019, and pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, it was continued to July 1, 2019. The parties then requested another continuance, and that request was granted and resulted in the current trial date.
Plaintiff has given no adequate reason that this case should receive priority over the other cases set for trial between now and August 2020. The fact that the parties’ original reason for requesting the continuance no longer applies does not magically create an opening in the Court’s docket. Nor has Plaintiff attempted to argue that this case is entitled to preference based on CCP § 36.
The motion to advance the trial date is DENIED.
Moving party to give notice, unless waived.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 26, 2019 ___________________________________
Randolph M. Hammock
Judge of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org
 Moreover, the simple fact is that this Court absolutely has no openings for trial before August 2020. It has 5-8 cases set for trial each and every Monday between now and March of 2021. Welcome to the World of the Independent Calendar Courts of Mosk.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases