Case Number: BC541644 Hearing Date: August 04, 2015 Dept: 92
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

FEREIDOUN CHAPARLI,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

KIUMARZ MAZAHERI, et al.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC541644

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #23
August 4, 2015

Plaintiff, Fereidoun Chaparli filed this action against Defendants, Kiumarz Mazaheri, Morton Reza Mazaheri, Mehran Abdeshah, Kiumarz Lenhard, Inc., Didar Global TV, and Hudson 1861 Bundy, LLC for damages arising out of an alleged assault and battery. Plaintiff’s original complaint was filed on 4/04/14. On 6/13/14, Defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint, setting it for hearing on 3/30/15. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was filed on 3/26/15. On 4/30/15, Defendants filed demurrers to the FAC. On 6/12/15, the Court heard the demurrers; the Court took the matters under submission, and rendered a ruling sustaining the demurrers in part and overruling the demurrers in part on 6/19/15. On 7/02/15, Plaintiff filed his operative Second Amended Complaint. To date, Defendants have not filed a responsive pleading.

Trial in this case is currently scheduled for 10/05/15. Defendants move to continue the trial date, contending the case is not yet “at issue,” they have not commenced discovery, and they need time to file a motion for summary judgment, etc. They seek an order continuing the trial date to either early March of 2016 or a date in August of 2016.

Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing Defendants have not been diligent in responding to the case. Plaintiff indicates he does not oppose a three month continuance of the trial, but would oppose a longer continuance.

It appears both parties have lacked diligence in connection with this lawsuit. Defendants’ demurrer to the original complaint was filed on 6/13/14 and set for hearing on Monday, 3/30/15, the Court’s first available date. Plaintiff could have amended his complaint at any time prior to the hearing, and the time for Defendants to respond would have begun running immediately. Plaintiff waited until the penultimate moment prior to the hearing to amend, and amended on Thursday, 3/26/15.

Defendants, on the other hand, were entitled to commence discovery upon being served with the summons and complaint. It appears they have chosen to hold off on conducting such discovery until the pleadings are “at issue.”

As noted above, both parties agree that some continuance of the trial date is necessary. Plaintiff seeks no more than three months; Defendant seeks a minimum of five months. The Court finds continuing the trial date to early March, 2016, one of the dates proposed by Defendants, is the best compromise under the circumstances. The trial date of 10/05/15 is advanced to today’s date and continued to 3/01/16 at 8:30 a.m. in D-92. The FSC date of 9/18/15 is advanced to today’s date and continued to 2/15/16 at 10:00 a.m. in D-92.

The parties are requested to commence discovery forthwith and to reserve any necessary dates via the court’s online reservation system to ensure the case moves forward without further delay.

Dated this 4th day of August, 2015

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court