Katelin Danaher vs Isla Vista Owner LLC, Christopher De La Vega, Trevor Large, Fauver Large, Archbald & Spray

Case Number

22CV03017

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 09/20/2023 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Amend the Answer; Motion to Continue the Trial

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Katelin Danaher by Kevin McCormick

Isla Vista Owner LLC by Jeffrey Lenkov

Christopher De La Vega, Trevor Large, Fauver Large, Archbald & Spray by David Samani

Issues

Motion to amend the answer; Motion to continue the trial.

Ruling

The Court has no viable options.

1. The Court previously guaranteed trial dates after the case was designated complex litigation; another case has already been given some of the dates requested here for 120 days out [i.e. Cobb vs Superior Court of California for the County of Ventura.] It may settle; you are double set, in part; if that case does not settle you will start as soon as it finishes within the following time frame. You must save all these dates.

2. The Trial Date of 11/1/23 is continued to 3/6/23 at 11:30 am; trial dates reserved: 3/7; 3/8/; 3/11; 3/12; 3/14; 3/15; 3/18; 3/19; 3/21; 3/22; 3/25; 3/26; 3/28; 3/29; 4/1 [holiday]; 4/2; 4/4; 4/5; 4/8; 4/9; 4/11; 4/12; 4/15; 4;16; 4/18; 4/19.

3. Trial Briefs, all jury instructions [those needing modification to be modified]; verdict form; in limine motions [numbered consecutively], witness lists, exhibit lists, due 2/28/24.

4. Be sure your experts are available.

5. The expert witness designation dates is set for Monday 12/11/23; and supplemental designation date is 12/27/23 [not per code]

6. A final CMC will be held on Friday 1/12/24 at 8:30am to set the expert witness deposition dates; be prepared to set those dates on 1/12/24 if not already scheduled by then.

7. Do not have any conflicting dates; do not stipulate to continue the trial date.

8. All trial related dates are set against the new trial date of 3/6/24; discovery closes 30 days before this trial date; to wit 2/6/24.

Analysis

Complaint filed 8/4/22.

On October 27, 2022 Defendant Isla Vista answered. The other three Defendants answered about the same time.

December 2022 - present trial dates were set.

On 6/16/23, at the last CMC, all counsel appeared and we discussed the discovery schedule; the Court designated the case as complex litigation. The Court was concerned about case management; this case had three sets of attorneys; “3 sides;” a malicious prosecution case; sought punitive damages; we agreed that a trial date should be set; we agreed on the trial date. We elected to manage it more closely to be sure it was tried on the scheduled date; to wit 11/1/23.

On 6/16/23 Counsel told the Court: “Written discovery – Mostly completed; Depositions completed – NONE; Depositions scheduled – None - The IME date -- not sure if one is necessary.” The Court then set - with the concurrence of all counsel - that the Pretrial Conference will be at 11:30am on 11/1/23. Reserved 10 trial dates. Trial Briefs, all jury instructions [those needing modification to be modified]; verdict form; in limine motions [numbered consecutively], witness lists, exhibit lists, due 10/25/23.

On 8/24/23, counsel for Isla Vista filed a motion for leave to amend the answer and continue the trial date [just 40 days before discovery cutoff and 70 days before trial]; requests permission to add two affirmative defenses to its Answer: To wit:

A. Advice of Counsel: The underlying lawsuit which gave rise to this action for malicious prosecution occurred because of the advice of legal counsel. Legal counsel encouraged Defendant to pursue the lawsuit. Defendant should not be held to blame for relying on its attorney.

B. Probable Cause Existed: Defendant Isla Vista wishes to argue that probable cause existed for Defendant to pursue the causes of action of the underlying case that gave rise to this lawsuit.

The Opposition

Fauver, Large, Archbald & Spray LLP, Trevor D. Large, and Christopher de la Vega point out that the Isla Vista motion for leave to amend is unopposed provided that the trial date is moved.  Waiving the attorney-client privilege and asserting a reliance of counsel defense changes the equation for them; allowing the amendment without a trial continuance would severely prejudice the Attorney Defendants, who have heretofore been required to defend this matter while respecting their former client’s attorney-client privilege. Argues that any amendment to the answer must be accompanied by a 120-day continuance of the trial date. 

The Court has put a lot of work into this case to not have it go out as we had scheduled it and vigorously reserved the trial dates.   

Continuance. The request for a 120-day continuance must be granted. At the same time the Court will build in protections so this does not need to be continued again.