Opinion
18-CV-814 TWR (BGS)
07-21-2023
HOWARD APPEL, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT S. WOLF, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, TRIAL, AND RELATED DATES
(ECF NO. 116)
HONORABLE TODD W. ROBINSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Presently before the Court is Defendant Robert S. Wolf's Motion to Continue the Pretrial Conference, Trial, and Related Dates. (ECF No. 116.) Plaintiff Howard Appel neither opposes nor joins in Defendant's request. (See id. at 1.) The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant's Motion as follows.
The instant action has been pending since April 27, 2018. (See ECF No. 1.) After the Parties completed interlocutory cross-appeals, (see ECF Nos. 31, 36, 39), the Honorable Bernard G. Skomal issued a Scheduling Order regulating discovery and setting various pretrial deadlines, including a Final Pretrial Conference before the Honorable M. James Lorenz the on April 11, 2022, (see ECF No. 50). The Parties then sought two extensions of the pretrial motions deadline, (see ECF Nos. 67, 70), which Judge Skomal granted, (see ECF Nos. 69, 71). In light of those extensions, Judge Skomal reset the Final Pretrial Conference for May 23, 2022. (See ECF No. 76; see also ECF No. 87.)
The Parties filed two additional joint motions seeking extensions of the deadline to file their pretrial motions, (see ECF Nos. 78, 82), which Judge Skomal also granted, (see ECF Nos. 79, 88, 90). Accordingly, Judge Skomal continued the Final Pretrial Conference until August 29, 2022. (See ECF No. 90.) In compliance with Judge Skomal's Order, the Parties filed their respective Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment in July 2022. (See ECF Nos. 91-92.) Given the then-pending Cross-Motions, Judge Lorenz continued, (see ECF No. 99), and then vacated, (see ECF No. 103), the Final Pretrial Conference.
After ruling on the Cross-Motions on January 31, 2023, (see ECF No. 104), Judge Lorenz reset the Final Pretrial Conference for July 10, 2023, (see ECF No. 105). On May 30, 2023, however, this action was transferred to the undersigned. (See ECF No. 113.) At the Parties' request, (see ECF No. 114), the Court again continued the Final Pretrial Conference, (see ECF No. 115), setting the Final Pretrial Conference for Thursday, August 17, 2023, at 3:00 p.m., and the trial for Monday, August 28, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. (See id. at 1.) The Court also set corresponding deadlines for, among other things, motions in limine, proposed jury instructions, proposed verdict forms, and proposed voir dire questions. (See id. at 2.)
Now-after this action has been pending for over five years and the pretrial conference has been continued numerous times-Defendant again seeks an extension of the Final Pretrial Conference date, as well as the trial date and related deadlines. (See generally ECF No. 116.) Although Defendant represents that “[c]ounsel have been meeting and conferring to discuss available dates if the Court agrees to move the trial date,” the Motion to Continue does not in fact propose any new and mutually agreeable dates for trial or a Final Pretrial Conference. (See id. at 2.) Rather, Defendant makes the blanket assertion that, “[d]ue to other pending trial dates, trial counsel for Defendant has conflicts with the August 28 trial date.” (See id.) Defendant then lists four trial dates, two of which appear to conflict with the dates set in the instant action. The first trial is from August 16 to 25, 2023, in the matter of Nature's Produce v. Chubb Agribusiness, et al. (the “Nature's Produce action”), and the second is from August 25 to September 1, 2023, in the matter of Citizens of Humanity v. Clark, et al. (the “Citizens of Humanity action”). (See id.)
Defendant did not provide the case numbers associated with these actions, but the Court has independently identified the relevant case information. As for the Nature's Produce action, the Court has found such a case pending before the Honorable Stephanie M. Bowick and Mark V. Mooney in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Nature's Produce Co. v. Chubb Agribusiness, et al., No. 20STCV17267 (Cal. Sup. Ct. filed May 6, 2020). Although the case is set for trial on August 16, 2023, none of the attorneys appearing on the Docket in that case are also appearing before this Court in the instant case.
Here, Defendant Wolf is represented by Douglas A. Pettit and Caitlin M. Jones of Pettit, Kohn, Ingrassia & Lutz PC. (See ECF No. 110.) As far as the Court can tell, neither Pettit nor Jones has entered an appearance in the Nature's Produce action. See Docket, Nature's Produce action. Indeed, it appears that Matthew Smith is the only attorney from Pettit, Kohn, Ingrassia & Lutz PC who has made an appearance in the Nature's Produce action. See id. Thus, it does not appear that “trial counsel for Defendant” in the instant action has a “pending trial date” from August 16 to 25, 2023, and good cause does not exist to reset the Final Pretrial Conference. Consequently, the Court DENIES IN PART Defendant's Motion insofar as it seeks a continuance of the Final Pretrial Conference and all other filing deadlines preceding that Conference.
Nicholas A. Prukop is also listed on the Docket as counsel of record for Defendant. (See generally Docket.) However, Prukop filed only one Joint Motion in this action, (see generally ECF No. 63), on behalf of now-withdrawn defense counsel, Andrew A. Servais, (see generally ECF No. 86), in contravention of Section II.f.1 of this District's Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies & Procedures Manual. Because Prukop has not otherwise been involved in this action, it is unclear whether he still represents-or, indeed, ever represented-Defendant Wolf.
As for the Citizens of Humanity action, the Court has confirmed that a case by that name is now pending before the Honorable Kenneth J. Medal in the San Diego County Superior Court and that Pettit is listed as counsel of record for Defendants Del Mar Law Group, LLP; Coni Haas; and JL Sean Slattery. See Docket, Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Louis Clark, et al., No. 37-2018-6337-CU-NP-CTL (Cal. Sup. Ct. filed Feb. 2, 2018). The Court has also confirmed that the trial is in fact set for August 25 to September 1, 2023. Because there is a direct conflict between the scheduled trial dates in the Citizens of Humanity action and the August 28, 2023 trial date in the instant action, the Court finds good cause for a continuance. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendant's Motion insofar as it seeks a continuance of the trial date and the deadlines following the Final Pretrial Conference.
With regard to finding a new trial date, Defense counsel represents that they are in trial from September 26, 2023, to November 2, 2023, and that Defendant is unavailable from November 10 to 25, 2023. Additionally, Plaintiff is purportedly unavailable from September 25, 2023, to October 20, 2023, and from November 20 to 28, 2023. Although Defendants' Motion to Continue also brings to the Court's attention counsel's planned vacation dates-including defense counsel's planned vacation from September 5 to 19, 2023-the Court concludes that the trial must go forward on September 5, 2023, given the Parties' limited availability for the remainder of this calendar year as well as the age of this action, the number of past continuances, and the Court's availability. The Court therefore RESETS the trial for September 5, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3A.
In light of the foregoing, the Court AMENDS its July 5, 2023 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 115) as follows:
Event
Deadline
File all motions in limine, including all trial-related Daubert motions, in a single, omnibus brief not to exceed twenty-five (25) pages.
July 20, 2023
1. File all oppositions to motions in limine, including all trial-related Daubert motions, in a single, omnibus brief not to exceed twenty-five (25) pages;
August 3, 2023
The Parties SHALL COMPLY with Sections VII.B.1-3 of the undersigned's Standing Order for Civil Cases, which governs the preparation of proposed jury instructions, proposed voir dire questions, proposed verdict forms, and any stipulations.
IT IS SO ORDERED.