Saccheri v. Chicago Title Co. CA3

Filed 2/7/14 Saccheri v. Chicago Title Co. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

ALAN SACCHERI et al., C069758

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. 166298)

v.

CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

This appeal is from a judgment entered after the trial court granted a motion for judgment in favor of defendants/respondents Chicago Title Company (Chicago Title) and its title and escrow officer Cheryl Peterson (Peterson) against plaintiffs/appellants Alan and Robin Saccheri. The lawsuit, which included claims of fraud, breach of contract and negligence, was based on the Saccheris’ claim that defendants induced them to purchase a home in Redding for more than it was worth and when the Saccheris discovered its true value, they quit making payments and lost title to the home through foreclosure.

1

On appeal, the Saccheris make three contentions of error. One, the trial court abused its discretion in failing to reopen discovery. Two, the trial court erred in refusing to compel attendance of their party opponents at trial. And three, the trial court erred in refusing them relief from their waiver of jury trial. As we explain below, contention one lacks merit because the court was within its discretion to deny the motion to reopen discovery based on the Saccheris’ lack of due diligence in propounding discovery. Contention two lacks merit because the Saccheris served only a notice of trial on their party opponents and should have served a subpoena or at least argued their notice of trial was the functional equivalent of a notice to attend if they wanted their opponents to personally appear. Instead, they argued a summons filed after the complaint compelled the defendants to personally appear at trial (which it does not). And contention three lacks merit because the court was within its discretion to deny the Saccheris relief from waiver of jury trial because it was untimely (coming the day of trial) and prejudiced defendants. We will therefore affirm the judgment. DISCUSSION I The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion Refusing To Reopen Discovery The Saccheris contend the trial court abused its discretion when it denied their motion to reopen discovery, which the court did based on their lack of due diligence. As we explain, there was no abuse. Discovery is to be completed “on or before the 30th day . . . before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc.,1 § 2024.020, subd. (a).) “[D]iscovery is considered completed on the day a response is due or on the day a deposition begins.” (§ 2024.010.) The trial court has discretion to reopen discovery.