Judge Anne Hwang, Case Number: 21STCV45881, Date: 2024-09-30 Tentative Ruling

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.

Plaintiff Zadia Y. Egan (“Plaintiff”) moves to continue trial and all related dates. No opposition has been filed.

The complaint was filed on December 16, 2021 alleging negligence based on a motor vehicle accident. Trial was initially set for June 15, 2023.

On June 1, 2023, at the final status conference, no proofs of service of the summons and complaint on Defendants were filed and the trial date was vacated.

On October 31, 2023, at the trial setting conference, trial was set for October 28, 2024.

“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;

(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.”

“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:

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

(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;

(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.

Plaintiff requests a trial continuance to April 28, 2025 in order for the parties to mediate and settle the case. A global mediation was scheduled for September 10, 2024. In the event a settlement is not obtained, Plaintiff seeks additional time to schedule and conduct a second global mediation. (Pirian Decl. ¶ 6.) The parties have also stipulated to continue trial.[1]

No opposition has been filed for this motion. However, Plaintiff fails to describe specifically why there is good cause for the April 2025 continuance, even if a second global mediation is conducted. Additionally, Plaintiff provides no reasons to extend the fact discovery cut-offs. For example, no information is provided to the Court regarding what discovery has been conducted, what discovery is outstanding and why, and why it would take several months to schedule a second mediation. The only information provided is that “[i]n the unlikely event that a settlement is not reached at the upcoming global mediation, granting this motion shall ensure that the Parties will have sufficient time to schedule and conduct an additional global mediation without the constraint of a looming Final Status Conference and Jury Trial which the Parties may not be adequately prepared for.” (Pirian Decl. ¶ 6.) While this might theoretically justify a short continuance of a few weeks, depending on why a second mediation is needed and when it would be scheduled for, this does not justify a continuance to April 2025.

Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to continue trial and discovery cut-off dates.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial and discovery cut-off dates.

[1] The Court denied the parties’ stipulation and indicated that the parties did not set forth with specificity sufficient good cause to justify the length of continuance requested. Rather than address the deficiencies, Plaintiff then filed this motion to continue, again failing to explain the good cause justifying the length of continuance requested.

DEPARTMENT	32
HEARING DATE	September 30, 2024
CASE NUMBER	21STCV45881
MOTION	Motion to Continue Jury Trial and Discovery Cut-Off Dates
MOVING PARTIES	Plaintiff Zadia Y. Egan
OPPOSING PARTY	Unopposed