Arroyo v. Mehrabi, et al.

Filing 58

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 5/16/2022 DENYING 55 Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial. (Kirksey Smith, K)

Case 2:19-cv-01147-WBS-CKD Document 58 Filed 05/16/22 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo----

11
12

RAFAEL ARROYO, JR.,

13
14
15
16
17
18

No. 2:19-cv-1147 WBS CKD

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
KARIM MEHRABI; STARS HOLDING
CO., LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company;
and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.

19
----oo0oo----

20
21

Defendants have filed an ex parte request to continue

22

trial based on their discovery of a lawsuit brought by the

23

district attorneys of San Francisco and Los Angeles against

24

plaintiff’s counsel’s law firm.

25

opposed by plaintiff.

(Docket No. 55.)

The request is

(Docket No. 57.)

26

The court notes that while defendants state they became

27

aware of the lawsuit on April 27, 2022, they waited until May 12,

28

less than three weeks before the trial date, to file their ex
1

Case 2:19-cv-01147-WBS-CKD Document 58 Filed 05/16/22 Page 2 of 2
1

parte request.

2

June 1, 2022 was set on September 7, 2021, when the court adopted

3

the parties’ stipulation, and was confirmed in the court’s

4

Pretrial Order issued March 30, 2022.

5

court is ready to trial the case now, and there is no guarantee

6

it will be ready to do so six months from now.

7

The court further notes that the trial date of

(Docket Nos. 38, 49.)

The

Further, the issue of whether plaintiff in fact

8

encountered the alleged barriers in this case, and whether he

9

intended to return, has been in dispute at least since plaintiff

10

filed his motion for summary judgment, if not since the filing of

11

the Complaint in 2019.

12

Thus, defendants should have been well aware of any discovery

13

they needed regarding plaintiff’s standing in this case, and if

14

necessary, could have requested additional time for discovery

15

months ago.

16

provide any evidence at trial that they believe would negate any

17

elements of the claims at issue in this case, including whether

18

plaintiff has standing.

19
20

Defendants are also free to raise any defenses and

For all the above reasons, defendants’ ex parte request
to continue trial (Docket No. 55) is DENIED.

21
22

(See, e.g., Docket No. 41-4, 41-5.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 16, 2022

23
24
25
26
27
28
2