Calvillo Martinez vs. Martinez

Defendants also argue that amendment is futile because the proposed First Amended Complaint removes allegations that Defendants’ alleged interference with Plaintiff’s easement must be “unreasonable” to be actionable. Plaintiff responds that Defendants mistakenly rely on cases concerning privately negotiated easements, whereas the easement in this matter was acquired through eminent domain and prohibits structures that interfere with Plaintiff’s “full use and enjoyment.” Where the opposing party claims the proposed pleading is futile, “[l]eave to amend should be denied only where the facts are not in dispute, and the nature of the plaintiff’s claim is clear, but under substantive law, no liability exists and no amendment would change the result.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) Defendants have not met this burden.

In sum, the motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff SHALL separately file and serve the proposed First Amended Complaint within 10 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff to give notice.

5 Calvillo Martinez Motion to Advance Trial Date vs. Martinez The court DENIES Plaintiffs CLAUDIA VERONICA CALVILLO MARTINEZ and KAMAL ALEXANDER BENITEZ’s motion to advance the trial date.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1335 provides in relevant part, “A the party seeking to advance.... A case for trial must make this request by noticed motion or ex parte application under the rules in Chapter 4 of this division.” (Cal. Rules Ct., rule 3.1335(a).) “The request may be granted only upon an affirmative showing by the moving party of good cause based on a declaration served and filed with the motion or application.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1335(b).)

Plaintiffs argue that good cause exists to advance the trial date because Plaintiffs suffer ongoing injuries, experience financial hardship, and three material witnesses may not be available for the currently scheduled 9/20/27 trial.

Plaintiffs however do not establish good cause for an earlier trial date. Plaintiff Calvillo Martinez’s declaration contains only legal conclusions and ultimate facts (versus evidentiary facts), that does not amount to competent evidence. (See, e.g., Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 280-281 [finding conclusory assertions about a declarant’s “anxiety, depression, and financial hardships” supported by no evidentiary facts about either his emotional or financial state to be insufficient to support setting aside default based on excusable neglect]; United Parcel Service Wage & Hour Cases (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1018 [finding a declaration consisting of only a recitation of legal conclusions and ultimate facts, without any evidentiary facts, was insufficient to establish a triable issue of fact to defeat summary judgment]; Hayman v.

Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 640 [finding declarations containing “general and vague charges” do not qualify as “competent or credible evidence.”].)

Even if the court considered the legal conclusions and ultimate facts presented in Plaintiff Calvillo Martinez’s declaration, Plaintiffs do not show that any key witness will likely be unavailable to testify, only that their availability “may be affected.” Plaintiffs also do not explain why any injuries or financial strain justifies an earlier trial date.

For these reasons, the court DENIS Plaintiffs’ motion to advance the trial.

Note, the court did not consider the opposition papers filed by Defendant Martinez. Self-represented parties are to be served by non-electronic methods unless they affirmatively consent to electronic service, by: (1) serving a notice on all parties and filing the notice with the court, or (2) manifesting affirmative consent through electronic means with the court or the court’s electronic filing service provider, and concurrently providing the party’s electronic address with that consent for the purpose of receiving

electronic service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6(c)(3); Cal. Rules Ct., rule 2.251(b)(1)(B).) The court record includes no affirmative consent by the self-represented plaintiffs to electronic service.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling by non- electronic methods.

6 Burton vs. Orange Motion to Continue Trial County Department of [Typographical error corrected below (in red) – 9/10/26 at Education about 12:05 pm.]

The court GRANTS Plaintiff VERNON BURTON’s motion to continue trial.

The 10/12/26 (5-7 day jury) trial is CONTINUED to 4/12/27, at 8:45 am in Dept. W8.

All trial-related dates, including discovery and motion cut- off dates and deadlines, SHALL be based upon the new trial date.

The court has examined the factors set forth in Rule 3.1332(c) and (d) of the California Rules of Court, as they pertain to this case.

Here, discovery disputes remain pending: The depositions of Dave Connor and Sara Young remain outstanding, Defendant has moved to compel Plaintiff to submit to a mental examination, which is pending, and an IDC regarding the parties’ discovery dispute is set for 9/29/26.

While Defendant argues that the motion is moot given that the court already continued the trial date from 8/3/26 to 10/12/26, given the outstanding discovery issues, the motion does not appear to be MOOT and the court finds good cause for a further trial continuance.

The parties are ordered to meaningfully meet and confer in person on a stipulated discovery schedule for the depositions of Dave Connor and Sara Young, the extent and

7