Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV47459, Date: 2024-10-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV47459    Hearing Date: October 9, 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

Cross-Defendant J & J Tree Service, Inc. (“Cross-Defendant”) moves to continue trial and all related dates. No opposition has been filed.

BACKGROUND

            The complaint was filed on December 29, 2021 alleging that Plaintiff was injured after a tree branch fell on him. Trial was initially set for June 28, 2023.

            Defendants Richard J. Robin and Nurit G. Robin (“Defendants”) filed their answer and cross-complaint against Roes 1 to 100 on March 25, 2022.

            On June 6, 2023, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and related dates to January 30, 2024.

            On June 16, 2023, Defendants filed an amendment to the cross-complaint, substituting Cross-Defendant as Roe 1.

            Cross-Defendant filed its answer on August 7, 2023.

            On November 6, 2023, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and related dates to July 15, 2024.

            On May 13, 2024, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and related dates to November 18, 2024 “to accommodate the parties’ completion of discovery and mediation.” (Order, 5/13/24.) The Order also stated, “No Further Continuance Absent Sufficient Good Cause.” (Ibid.)

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

Cross-Defendant requests the Court continue trial and related dates to June 16, 2025, or alternatively, vacate the current trial date and set a trial setting conference in 60 days.

Cross-Defendant argues it requires additional time to conduct discovery. Cross-Defendant served initial discovery on Plaintiff on March 25, 2024. (Inniss Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff was deposed in June 2024. Cross-Defendant states it propounded its first set of discovery against Defendants/Cross-Complainants on June 14, 2024; it received responses on August 15, 2024. (Inniss Decl. ¶ 12.) Cross-Defendant points to the looming discovery cut-off and asserts the parties have scheduled a mediation on October 17, 2024.  

Cross-Defendant argues that “a short continuance will allow J&J the opportunity to conduct further discovery it is entitled to in this matter, including but not limited to compelling responses from Cross-Complainants if need be, and to evaluate the merits of the case and prepare its defense accordingly. By way of example, at the time this motion was filed, no expert witness depositions have been taken, let alone noticed.” (Motion at p. 2.)

Cross-Defendant does not set forth with specificity sufficient good cause to justify the length of continuance requested. Trial is currently scheduled for November 18, 2024. Cross-Defendant does not explain why the expert witness depositions cannot be taken promptly. Moreover, no outstanding fact discovery is set forth in the motion. Finally, no dispositive motion has yet been filed. While the Court would consider a short two-week continuance to allow for expert depositions to be taken after the mediation, there is no good cause set forth for a continuance to June 2025.

Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to continue trial and all related dates.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court DENIES Cross-Defendant’s motion to continue trial and all related dates.

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