Commercial Loan Solutions v. Yu CA2/2

Filed 4/4/16 Commercial Loan Solutions v. Yu CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

COMMERCIAL LOAN SOLUTIONS III, B262047 LLC, (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. BC504114)

v.

MICHAEL S. YU,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael Linfield, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Egbase & Associates, Gerald O. Egbase; Law Offices of J. Grant Kennedy, J. Grant Kennedy for Defendant and Appellant.

Wagenseller Law Firm, Laine T. Wagenseller for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________________________

Defendant and appellant Michael Yu contends that the trial court wrongly denied a continuance of trial and, at trial, improperly admitted a document under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Because Yu fails to demonstrate reversible error, we affirm. BACKGROUND Plaintiff and respondent Commercial Loan Solutions III, LLC (CLS), filed suit against Yu in March 2013 for breach of guaranty. In its complaint, CLS alleged that in September 2007, Yu’s law corporation executed a promissory note for a commercial loan in the principal sum of $1,196,500, with Bank of the West (BOW) as lender, to purchase real property secured by a deed of trust in favor of BOW. To further secure the promissory note obligations, Yu, as an individual, executed a guaranty in favor of BOW for all amounts owed on the promissory note. In May 2012, the promissory note and guaranty were sold by BOW to CLS. In November 2012, the property was sold in a nonjudicial foreclosure to CLS for a credit bid of $880,000. The complaint alleged Yu owed the remaining balance on the loan pursuant to the guaranty. The trial court initially set a trial date of September 24, 2014. Yu substituted attorneys in May 2014. On August 11, 2014, he substituted attorneys again. On August 19, 2014, Yu brought an ex parte application to continue the trial date, arguing, among other things, that discovery had “barely begun” and no depositions had been taken, and that his new counsel would not have adequate time to prepare for trial. CLS opposed the ex parte application. The trial court granted the application and continued the trial date to November 7, 2014. On October 31, 2014, Yu’s third set of attorneys filed an ex parte application to be relieved as counsel, noting that Yu “is an attorney with his own law firm and would not suffer prejudice if counsel is allowed to withdraw.” In addition to withdrawal as counsel, the application sought a continuance of trial. CLS did not oppose the withdrawal but opposed a continuance. After conducting an in camera hearing, the trial court granted the application for relief but denied Yu’s request “to continue the trial for six months.” The