Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV02031, Date: 2023-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV02031    Hearing Date: January 5, 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

 

DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

January 5, 2024

CASE NUMBER

21STCV02031

MOTION

Motion to Continue Trial

MOVING PARTIES

Defendant Trader Joe’s Company

OPPOSING PARTY

Unopposed

 

MOTION

 

Defendant Trader Joe’s Company (“Defendant”) moves to continue trial. Plaintiff Robert Ames, in pro per, (Plaintiff) does not oppose.[1]

 

BACKGROUND

 

            The complaint was filed on January 19, 2021.

 

            The first amended complaint (FAC) was filed June 29, 2022.

 

            The answer was filed on December 1, 2022.

 

            Trial is currently set for March 13, 2024.

 

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

 

Defendant has filed two discovery motions, set to be heard on January 10, 2024. Defendant seeks a continuance of six months in order to accommodate the hearings and to thereafter complete discovery. Defendant asserts it first served Plaintiff with discovery requests on December 9, 2022. Defendant states it offered Plaintiff multiple extensions and met and conferred throughout 2023. The last extension expired on June 15, 2023, in light of Plaintiff’s eye surgery, which left him visually impaired. Defendant asserts no responses have been received and more time is needed to compel the responses and to conduct discovery, including issuing subpoenas and deposing Plaintiff and other witnesses.  

 

Plaintiff does not oppose the continuance to prepare for trial. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to continue.

 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s motion for a continuance.

 

The trial date, currently set for March 13, 2024, is continued to September 17, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

 

The Final Status Conference, currently set for February 28, 2024, is continued to September 3, 2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 32.

 

All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall be in accordance with the new trial date.

 

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

 



[1] Plaintiff filed an “Unopposed Reply” on December 26, 2023.