Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV00298, Date: 2024-04-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00298    Hearing Date: April 8, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion of Hassan Kayal dba Prime Build Construction to Continue Trial and Related Motion and Discovery Dates. Joinder Therein of Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant B & A Fire Protection.

BACKGROUND

ALEX MESEONZNIK and LIKA MESEONZNIK (“Plaintiffs”) filed this case for alleged construction defects against PRIME BUILD CONSTRUCTION, INC.; PRIME BUILT CONSTRUCTION, INC.; REZA SARAFZADEH; HASSAN KAYAL; and BAHRAM AGHANABI. Defendant/Cross-Complainant Hassan Kayal (“Kayal”) filed a Cross-Complaint against several sub-contractors including B&A Fire Protection (“B&A”).

Kayal now moves for a trial continuance and B&A joins in the motion. Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Continuances of trial are disfavored and may be granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause. Cal Rules of Ct 3.1332(c). Circumstances that may show good cause include the substitution of trial counsel if there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice, the addition of a new party if the new party and other parties have not had an opportunity to conduct discovery with regards to the new party, or a party’s excused inability to obtain essential discovery. Cal Rules of Ct 3.1332(c)(4), (6). In ruling on a motion to continue the trial, the court should consider various factors, including the proximity of the trial date, whether there was any previous continuance, the length of the requested continuance, the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of a continuance, and whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance. Cal Rules of Ct 3.1332(d)(1)-(3), (5), (10). Judges have broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a request for a continuance. People v. Caro (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 463, 499.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint was filed in September 2023. Kayal argues good cause exists for a trial continuance because new counsel substituted into the case in October 2023 and filed a Cross-Complaint in November 2023 against several sub-contractors. At the time of the hearing on this motion, four cross-defendants have answered, and four cross-defendants have yet to appear in the case (one cross-defendant has yet to be served). The Court agrees that these circumstances constitute good cause for a trial continuance. Four of the Cross-Defendants have filed answers and are in the case. These new parties must have the opportunity to conduct discovery, and of course, the parties already in the case should have the opportunity to seek discovery from the new parties. New counsel for Kayal acted diligently by filing the Cross-Complaint naming these sub-contractors within a month of substituting into the case.

Moreover, the other factors set forth in the Rules of Court militate in favor of a continuance. This is the first request for a continuance. The trial date in June 2023 is rapidly approaching and without a continuance, the parties will not have an opportunity to complete discovery and then have an opportunity to mediate the case with all of the parties’ participation. Plaintiffs, who filed a First Amended Complaint only a few months before the filing of the Cross-Complaint, have not pointed to any prejudice that would result to them as a result of a continuance.

Plaintiffs contend that several of the new cross-defendants have nothing to do with the construction defects at issue in Plaintiffs’ case and that Kayal’s Cross-Complaint instead relates to claims of indemnity, contribution, and negligence. Plaintiffs contend that rather than continue the trial, the Court should sever those claims for the sake of judicial efficiency. But severance would lead to great inefficiencies by causing duplicative presentations of proof at different trial phases, because Plaintiffs allege that subcontractors were involved in the alleged construction defects. See, e.g., First Amended Complaint, ¶ 16 (“each Defendant, including Does 1-100, each Seller and Developer and each Builder, Contractor and Subcontractor involved in the construction, owed a duty to Plaintiffs….”). Where a separate trial before a different jury would involve duplicative adjudications, to the detriment of judicial economy, it is entitled to some consideration in the court’s exercise of discretion. Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 847, 913.  The Court concludes that severance will not promote the interests of justice; rather the interests of justice militate in favor of continuing the trial.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted. Trial set for 6/17/24 is advanced and continued to a date to be determined at the hearing in consultation with counsel. All related cutoff dates shall be based upon the continued trial date.