Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV24507, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV24507    Hearing Date: January 25, 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

Defendants Justin Valdez and Honeywell International Inc. (“Defendants”) move to continue trial and all related dates for sixty days. No opposition has been filed.

BACKGROUND

The complaint was filed on July 2, 2021.

Defendants’ answers were filed on April 6, 2022 and June 13, 2022.

On October 17, 2022, the Court consolidated this case and 21STCV26050.  

On August 21, 2023, the Court granted an ex parte application to continue trial from October 3, 2023 to February 20, 2024.

Trial is currently set for February 20, 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

Defendants argue that they originally scheduled Plaintiffs Ramon Flores and Consuelo Flores (“Plaintiffs”) medical examination for November 21, 2023, and served notice on October 19, 2023. (Brand Decl. ¶ 2.) However, on November 20, 2023, Plaintiffs stated they were unavailable. (Id. ¶ 3.) The next available examination was January 9, 2024, but Plaintiffs were again unavailable. (Id. ¶¶ 7–9.) As a result, Defendants argue they do not have enough time to complete discovery before trial, through no fault of their own. Plaintiffs Ramon Flores and Consuelo Flores filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to this motion. Defendants set Plaintiffs’ examination for January 30, 2024, but was informed that Plaintiffs would not be able to confirm the date until January 3, 2024. (Id. ¶ 11.) The expert designation date in this case was January 2, 2024.

As a result, Defendants argue they require at least 60 days in order to complete discovery. Therefore, based on the above, it appears Defendants have a reasonable excuse for failing to conduct necessary discovery.

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to continue trial.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to continue trial.

The trial date, currently set for February 20, 2024, is continued to May 7, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Department 32. 

The Final Status Conference, currently set for February 5, 2024, is continued to April 23, 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.  

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