Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV37463, Date: 2023-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37463    Hearing Date: March 21, 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

Defendant Martinez Steel, LLC (Defendant) moves to continue trial. No opposition has been filed.

BACKGROUND

            The complaint was filed on October 8, 2021.

            On November 1, 2022, Defendant was amended as Doe 1.

            Defendant filed an answer on January 11, 2023.

            Trial was initially set for April 7, 2023.  On February 9, 2023, the parties stipulated to continue trial to January 4, 2024.

            On July 5, 2023, Defendant’s current counsel was substituted into the case.

            On September 18, 2023, the Court granted in part Defendant’s motion to continue trial and all related dates to April 30, 2024. The Court denied the request to continue trial to August 2024. (Min. Order, 9/18/23.)

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 seeks to continue trial and all related dates for six months in order to complete fact discovery before mediation. This is the third requested continuance in this case. The declaration provided by Defendant asserts that “significant discovery still need[s] to be conducted, including expert discovery and a possible second IME.” (Santa Cruz Decl. ¶ 10.) Defendant does not provide a specific reason why more discovery is required in this case, or how diligently the parties have conducted discovery after the continuance was granted on September 18, 2023. Additionally, Defendant has not provided facts to support the need for a six-month continuance.

However, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s deposition took place on November 30, 2023 and that he is still receiving medical care. (Id. ¶ 8.) Updated medical subpoenas need to be obtained. The Court also notes that discovery motions are scheduled for early July 2024.

For those reasons, the Court grants a short continuance. Counsel are admonished that, as previously indicated, to justify a request for a continuance, the parties need to establish with specificity the outstanding discovery that is necessary and the parties’ diligence in pursuing such discovery, in addition to any other factor set forth above. Defendant’s argument that all parties have stipulated to the continuance and that no parties will be prejudiced is not dispositive.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to continue trial and orders as follows:

The trial date, currently set for April 30, 2024, is continued to September 9, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

The Final Status Conference, currently set for April 16, 2024, is continued to August 26, 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.