Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV11176, Date: 2023-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11176    Hearing Date: September 11, 2023    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 The Sam Telis and Phyllis Telis Inter Vivos Trust (“Defendant”) moves to continue trial from September 29, 2023 to March 29, 2024, or to a date thereafter convenient to the Court. No opposition has been filed.

The complaint was filed on April 1, 2022. Trial has not previously been continued.

ANALYSIS

 “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.  Whether the parties have stipulated to the postponement is a relevant factor for consideration.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 595.2, but see Lorraine v. McComb (1934) 220 Cal. 753, 756-757 [finding a stipulation to be merely “directory”].)

Here, Defendant asserts there is good cause to continue the trial because the complaint was not served until September 20, 2022 and Defendant did not file an answer until November 4, 2022. Defendant further argues that discovery is not complete, various records have not been received pursuant to subpoenas, and therefore Defendant’s experts have not had an opportunity to review the records.

The Court finds good cause to continue the trial and grants Defendant’s motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Final Status Conference is continued to March 12, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Trial is continued to March 26, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

All discovery and motion cut-off dates are associated with the new trial date.

Defendant shall give notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.