Janice Elizabeth Arnold vs. Antelope Manufactured Home Community, L.P.

34-2022-00318831-CU-BC-GDS: Janice Elizabeth Arnold vs. Antelope Manufactured Home Community, L.P. 04/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov [which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options]. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 17A ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16173813009 and the ZoomGov ID is: 161 7381 3009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 17A at (916) 874-5487 for assistance.

The motion of Defendants Antelope Manufactured Home Community GP, LLC (“Defendant”) to continue trial is ruled on as follows.

Trial is scheduled for May 4, 2026. Defendant requests a continuance on grounds additional time is necessary to complete discovery. Plaintiffs Janice Elizabeth Arnold, et al., (“Plaintiffs”) oppose the motion. “To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) “Although continuances of trial are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.” (Id., rule 3.1332(c).) “The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (Ibid.) “The general rule governing continuances set forth in section 9 [of the Standards of Judicial Administration] is that ‘. . . the necessity for the continuance should have resulted from an emergency occurring after the trial setting conference that could not have been anticipated or avoided with reasonable diligence and cannot now be properly provided for other than by granting of a continuance.” (Lazarus v.

Titmus (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1250 [emphasis added].) Defendant argues there is good cause for a continuance due to a substitution of counsel on March 19, 2026. However, the substation of counsel is good cause for a continuance “only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice”. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) Defendant has not offered any evidence to explain why the substitution was required in the interests of justice.

34-2022-00318831-CU-BC-GDS: Janice Elizabeth Arnold vs. Antelope Manufactured Home Community, L.P. 04/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

Defendant also argues there is substantial discovery that needs to be completed because 17 plaintiffs simply provided objections to written discovery, 17 plaintiffs failed to respond to written discovery, the depositions of plaintiffs and third-party witnesses have not been completed, and expert discovery is incomplete.

In opposition, Plaintiff disputes the scope and characterization of the discovery issues and argues that any inability to complete discovery was due to Defendant’s own delay. Plaintiff argues Defendant failed to file any motion to compel discovery as to the 17 Plaintiffs that responded to discovery with objections and failed to propound discovery to the other 17 Plaintiffs until January 23, 2026 and that responses have now been provided. Plaintiff indicates the only outstanding discovery is for supplemental responses, to which the parties have agreed to an April 10, 2026 deadline. Plaintiffs also argue Defendant unreasonably delayed in noticing depositions and has recently cancelled depositions.

A continuance of trial to complete discovery is proper where the parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to complete discovery or will be unable to obtain essential evidence despite due diligence. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)(5)-(6).)

As the result of an appeal, discovery in this action was stayed between October 20, 2022 and May 23, 2024. Trial is currently scheduled for May 4, 2026. Thus, following issuance of the remittitur, the parties have had almost two years to complete discovery. Defendant has failed to explain why two years was not reasonably sufficient to complete discovery. Defendant has also failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in pursuing discovery during that time. As noted above, Defendant did not file any motion to compel concerning the 17 Plaintiffs that objected to written discovery and waited until January 2026 to propound discovery on the other 17 Plaintiffs. Further, as the parties have agreed to an April 10, 2026 deadline for providing responses, it appears written discovery can be completed without the need for a trial continuance.

Defendant argues additional time is needed to complete depositions. Defendant has failed to explain why there was insufficient time to notice and complete the identified depositions. Parties are not required to complete written discovery before commencing depositions and Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the particular circumstances of this case would necessitate completing written discovery before depositions. Further, to the extent Defendant believed it was necessary to do so, Defendant was required to commence written discovery sufficiently in advance of trial so that there would be time remaining to complete any necessary depositions.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00318831-CU-BC-GDS: Janice Elizabeth Arnold vs. Antelope Manufactured Home Community, L.P. 04/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

Finally, the Court notes a trial continuance is improper where alternative remedies are available. Defendant has failed to explain why alternative remedies, such as extending the discovery deadline for depositions would be insufficient to permit any necessary discovery to be completed. Even if there is insufficient time, the Court notes Defendant is not required to depose a witness before that witness may be issued a notice or subpoena to appear at trial,

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Defendant has failed to show good cause for a continuance. The motion is denied.

This case has been assigned to Department 17A for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 17A. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court. Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956.

Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.