Kurush Saadat and Elizabeth Wilson v. Jamesons SM, LLC and Sunset Restaurant Group LLC

(Beverly Hills Courthouse: Dept. 207) August 27, 2026 DEPARTMENT 207 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

DEPARTMENT | 207 | HEARING DATE | August 27, 2026 | CASE NUMBER |

| MOTION | Motion to Continue Trial | MOVING PARTIES | Defendants Jamesons SM, LLC (erroneously sued as Jameson's Irish Pub Santa Monica) and Stephen Gardner-Rivera | OPPOSING PARTIES | none |

BACKGROUND This case arises from allegations that Plaintiffs were assaulted and battered by security at a pub. The operative First Amended Complaint ("FAC") filed by Plaintiffs Kurush Saadat and Elizabeth Wilson ("Plaintiffs") allege ten causes of action as follows: 1. Assault 2. Battery 3. Negligence 4. Negligent Hiring

5. Premises Liability 6. Vicarious Liability for Assault 7. Vicarious Liability for Battery 8. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 9. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 10. Interference with Exercise of Civil Rights

The FAC was originally brought against Defendants Jamesons SM, LLC (erroneously named as Jameson's Irish Pub Santa Monica) and Sunset Restaurant Group LLC. Sunset was voluntarily dismissed on February 21, 2025.

On May 6, 2026, Defendants Solcon Security, LLC, Bryan Ray, and Steven Gardner-Rivera were subsequently added Does 1 through 3, respectively. Default was entered against Solcon on August 12, 2026, and Ray and Gardner-Rivera have yet to be served. Jamesons and Gardner-Rivera now move to continue the trial date and all related pre-trial deadlines. The motion is unopposed.

LEGAL STANDARD California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c), provides: Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.

Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) The addition of a new party if: (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case; (6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.

Factors the Court considers in ruling on a motion for continuance include: (1) The proximity of the trial date; (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; (3) The length of the continuance requested; (4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (Rule 3.1332(d).)

ANALYSIS Trial in this matter is currently scheduled for September 28, 2026. Jamesons and Gardner-Rivera move to continue the trial and all related pretrial deadlines by at least six (6) months on the grounds that (1) Jamesons' insurance carrier has recently and unexpectedly withdrawn its coverage and defense of the case, and new counsel must be retained and brought up to speed and the insurance denial may change the settlement posture of the case; and (2) the newly-named Defendant Gardner-Rivera, Jamesons' former employee, has not yet had sufficient time to prepare for trial.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER In lieu of continuing the trial as requested, the Court orders as follows: · The Final Status Conference and Trial are vacated.

· The Court sets a Trial Readiness Conference on October 15, 2026 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 207.

· The parties shall meet and confer in person, or remotely, on or before September 18, 2026 to prepare a comprehensive discovery plan that identifies ALL outstanding non-expert and expert discovery and details on how the parties will complete/resolve such discovery in order to prepare for trial or other resolution, without Court intervention.

· The parties shall file their discovery plan on or before October 8, 2026.

· Plaintiffs shall effectuate service of the summons and complaint on Defendants Bryan Ray and Steven Gardner-Rivera, or if service has been perfected, Plaintiffs shall file the attendant proofs of service, on or before September 18, 2026.

As such, the Court sets an Order to Show Cause re Sanctions against Plaintiffs for failure to serve the summons and complaint on October 15, 2026 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 207. If Plaintiffs fail to perfect service of the summons and complaint, the Court may dismiss Defendants Bryan Ray and Steven Gardner-Rivera as permitted under the Code of Civil Procedure and the California Rules of Court.

Defendants shall provide notice of the Court's Orders and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

DATED: August 27, 2026 ______/s/_____________________ Michael E. Whitaker Judge of the Superior Court Case Number: 25SMCV01722 Hearing Date: August 27, 2026 Dept: 207 TENTATIVE RULING DEPARTMENT | 207 | HEARING DATE | August 27, 2026