Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV05340, Date: 2024-06-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05340    Hearing Date: June 18, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial Date and Related Deadlines.

BACKGROUND

TARA DeMARCO (“Plaintiff”) brings this case against 2315 LOMA VISTA LLC et al. (“Defendants”), alleging that Plaintiff owns a residential and vacant lot at 2256 Earl Street, Los Angeles, and Defendants’ claims of property interests lack merit, including because there are no valid easements to use a walkway or driveway, or to construct a fence, of neighboring property owners. The causes of action are (1) Quiet Title, (2) Declaratory Relief, (3) Willful Trespass, (4) Negligent Trespass, (5) Nuisance, and (6) Injunctive Relief.

Plaintiff moves for an order continuing the trial, set for 8/12/24, and related deadlines. Defendants have not filed an opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

Continuances of trial 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 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 because 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

Plaintiff argues that good cause exists for a trial continuance because Plaintiff recently added new parties via DOE amendments resulting from a defendant’s transfer of title to real property at issue in this case. Plaintiff discovered the added defendants in April 2024, upon discovery of a corporate defendant’s transfer of real property, and not all defendants have been served or answered. So, Plaintiff requests time to complete discovery and states that no other party conducted discovery.

Generally, newly added defendants are entitled to sufficient time to prepare a defense before trial. See Polibrid Coatings, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 920, 923-924 (“We think it plain that in a case where a litigant is brought into litigation after 14/24ths of the time to litigate it has passed, these factors would dictate at least enough time for that party to reasonably complete discovery and bring a summary judgment motion.”).

Here, Plaintiff properly followed DOE amendment procedure, and the newly added defendants would not have sufficient time to prepare for trial in only about two months.

Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s delayed discovery of new defendants support a trial continuance and extended deadlines.

CONCLUSION

The Court grants the unopposed motion. The Court will set a new trial date in consultation with counsel at the hearing.