Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV00145, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV00145    Hearing Date: November 13, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

This case arises from an alleged motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff Matthew Morgan (“Plaintiff”) now moves to continue trial. No opposition has been filed.  

BACKGROUND

            The complaint was filed on January 2, 2020. The first amended complaint (“FAC”) was filed on January 21, 2020. Trial was initially set for July 1, 2021.

            On July 1, 2021, the case was dismissed without prejudice after Plaintiff failed to appear at trial and failed to serve the complaint.

            On January 5, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the dismissal. Trial was set for August 15, 2022.

            On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff represented that publication started on July 21, 2022, and would run for 30 days. As a result, the trial was placed off calendar.

            On December 28, 2022, default was entered against Defendant.

            On April 11, 2023, the Court granted default judgment against Defendant.

            On September 19, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to set aside the default and default judgment.

            On September 19, 2023, Defendant filed his answer.

            On October 6, 2023, trial was scheduled for March 6, 2024.

            On January 22, 2024, the Court granted in part Defendant’s ex parte application and continued trial to May 22, 2024.

            On April 18, 2024, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial to July 10, 2024.

            On June 25, 2024, at the final status conference, the Court noted two motions to compel further discovery responses set for July 5, 2024, and pursuant to oral stipulation, continued trial to August 8, 2024.

            On August 5, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application and, pursuant to oral stipulation, continued trial to December 9, 2024. The order further stated the following: “Discovery is to remain closed absent a stipulation or an order from the Court pursuant to the filing of a Motion to Reopen Discovery. No further continuance of the Trial without sufficient good cause.” (Min. Order, 8/5/24.)

            On October 25, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial and related dates.

ANALYSIS

Legal Standard

 “Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.”¿ (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.)¿ A trial court has broad discretion in considering a request for a trial continuance.¿ (Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 13-18.)¿ California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 sets forth factors for the Court to consider in ruling on a motion to continue trial. 

“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).)

“A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b).)

“Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include:

(1)   The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(2)   The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(3)   The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(4)   The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;

(5)   The addition of a new party if:

(A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or

(B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s involvement in the case;

(6)   A party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or

(7)   A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.”

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)

“In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include:

(1)   The proximity of the trial date;

(2)   Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party;

(3)   The length of the continuance requested;

(4)   The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance;

(5)   The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;

(6)   If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;

(7)   The court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;

(8)   Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;

(9)   Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;

(10)  Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and

(11)  Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)

Discussion

This motion was filed on August 2, 2024, and written under the assumption that trial was going to begin on August 8, 2024, and Plaintiff would be unavailable because he was starting an internship on that date. Since trial has already been continued to December 9, 2024, this motion appears moot. As a result, the motion is denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial.

Plaintiff shall give notice of this order, and file a proof of service of such.