Motion to reconsider the prior application to continue trial
34-2022-00316048-CU-OR-GDS: E & A Monroy Holdings LLC vs. HSU Family Trust 06/06/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47
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 47 ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept47 and the ZoomGov ID is: 16173813009. 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 47 at (916) 874-5487 for assistance.
The notice of motion fails to provide notice of the Courts tentative ruling system as modified for matters appearing on the Law and Motion in the Presiding Judges department. The notice must include both the verbatim notice of the Courts tentative ruling system as set forth in Local Rule 1.06(D) and the verbatim notice of the modifications to the tentative ruling system for motions pending in the Presiding Judges department, as forth in Local Rule 1.06(E). Counsel for moving party shall contact all other parties and advise them of the full tentative ruling system, including that the tentative ruling will be posted two court days prior to the hearing date and that requests for oral argument must be made by noon the court day before the hearing.
The motion of Plaintiffs E & A Monroy Holdings, LLC and SAI Supermarkets, Inc. (Plaintiffs) to reconsider the prior application to continue trial is ruled on as follows.
On May 8, 2025, Plaintiff previously filed an ex parte application for a one-year continuance of trial based on a stipulation of the parties. The only facts offered in support of the stipulated request is that the parties had stipulated to a filing of a supplemental cross-complaint and that additional discovery was necessary. The papers in support of the application did not provide any details regarding the nature of the supplemental complaint, did not explain why the filing of a supplemental cross-complaint required a continuance, and did not identify any discovery that need to be completed.
Even when parties stipulate to a continuance, a request to continue trial must be supported by declaration or other evidence demonstrating good cause. (
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
34-2022-00316048-CU-OR-GDS: E & A Monroy Holdings LLC vs. HSU Family Trust 06/06/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47
Plaintiff subsequently filed the an ex parte application for reconsideration. The Court set this hearing on shortened time for consideration of that application.
This action arises out a dispute regarding a grant of easement for a commercial shopping center. The complaint and cross-complaint asserted competing claims that the other parties were prohibited from operating a grocery store.
As new and additional facts, Plaintiff explains that while the action was pending, former defendant and cross-complainant Carniceria Mi Mercadito, LLC (Carniceria) vacated the subject property in breach of a lease with Defendant Jienu Hsu (Hsu). As a result, Hsu filed a supplemental cross-complaint asserting a new claim against Plaintiffs for damages arising from the breach of the lease in excess of $2,000,000.
As new argument, Plaintiffs now explain that they stipulated to the filing of the supplemental cross-complaint in exchange for a stipulation to continue trial. Plaintiffs argue the new claims require a continuance because Hsu is seeking to hold Plaintiff liable for the action of a thirdparty, Carniceria, and that Plaintiff should therefore be permitted to conduct additional discovery as to Carnicerias potential defenses to the breach of lease claim, as those defenses would be equally applicable to the claims against Plaintiff.
Plaintiffs also provide additional facts concerning events that occurred after the Courts May 12, 2025 denial of the original application to continue trial. Specifically, Plaintiffs indicate the owner of Carnicerias deposition was prematurely terminated by Counsel and that a motion to compel will be necessary. Moreover, Plaintiffs indicate that on May 22, 2025, their lead trial counsel suffered a debilitating medical emergency and will not be available for trial as scheduled.
Based on the foregoing new and additional facts, the Court finds good cause to reconsider the prior application. In doing so, the Court finds good cause for a continuance based on stipulation of the parties, the change in status of the case based on the filing of a supplemental crosscomplaint adding a significant new claim, the unanticipated delay in discovery of an essential witness, the unavailability of counsel due to a medical emergency, and the factors set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.
The application to continue trial is GRANTED. The June 24, 2025 trial date is VACATED. Given the reasons for and the length of the continuance requested, the Court will refer this action back to the trial setting process.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2022-00316048-CU-OR-GDS: E & A Monroy Holdings LLC vs. HSU Family Trust 06/06/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47
This case is referred to the Trial Setting Process for selection of Trial and Mandatory Settlement Conference dates. All counsel (including parties appearing in pro per) shall confer and agree upon trial and settlement conference dates. Available dates can be obtained on the court's web site at http://www.saccourt.ca.gov, or by recorded message at 916-874-6098. Plaintiff's counsel must notify the court of the selection of Mandatory Settlement Conference and Trial dates within 60 days of the date of this order by completing the request form at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/civil/trial-setting.aspx. If the parties have not agreed on dates before the 60th day, court staff shall assign Mandatory Settlement Conference and Trial dates that are next available, unless an extension of time has been granted by the appropriate Case Management Program Judge.
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, all statutory deadlines, including discovery and expert discovery, shall be governed by the new trial date.
This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. 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 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 Courts 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 Reporters
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2022-00316048-CU-OR-GDS: E & A Monroy Holdings LLC vs. HSU Family Trust 06/06/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47
Office and an official reporter will be provided.