DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23NWCV04159·la·Civil·Wrongful Termination
Hearing todayDENIED

Lee Lam Zamora v. Bakery Depot Supplies Inc.

Ex parte application to continue trial

Hearing date
Aug 27, 2026
Department
C
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Ex Parte Application rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffLee Lam Zamora
DefendantBakery Depot Supplies Inc.

Ruling

Case No. 23NWCV04159 This wrongful termination action was filed by Plaintiff Lee Lam Zamora on December 21, 2023.

Trial was initially set for August 1, 2025. By stipulation of the parties, trial was continued to May 19, 2026. On April 8, 2026, trial was continued again by stipulation to October 15, 2026.

On July 15, 2026, Plaintiff propounded various discovery requests which remain unanswered. (Grigorian Decl., P.P.15-16.)

Plaintiff has filed nine discovery motions which are scheduled to be heard on September 18, 2026; October 2, 2026; October 6, 2026; October 20, 2026; October 22, 2026; November 10, 2026; November 16, 2026; and November 17, 2026.

Plaintiff applies ex parte to continue trial for nine months, or in the alternative, to advance the discovery motions to be heard before the currently scheduled trial date. Plaintiff declares that Plaintiff has not been able to complete any depositions and has not finalized written discovery. In addition, the parties have not engaged in any meaningful settlement discussions or private mediation. (Id., P.21.)

The ex parte application is DENIED.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated due diligence in seeking discovery. On April 8, 2026, trial was continued to October 15, 2026, yet Plaintiff waited until July 15, 2026 to propound additional discovery. Now, all but one of Plaintiff's motions to compel discovery are set beyond the deadline to hear discovery motions. Plaintiff's predicament is one of Plaintiff's own making.

Moving party to give notice.

MOTOR AMERICA

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share