Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV13607, Date: 2023-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13607    Hearing Date: October 17, 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

Defendants Produce Services of Los Angeles, Inc. and Jose de Jesus Rubio (Defendants) move to continue trial and all related dates. Plaintiffs Wing Tam and Pik Tam (Plaintiffs) oppose.

BACKGROUND

The complaint was filed on April 25, 2022.

The answer was filed on June 7, 2022.

On July 28, 2023, a substitution of attorney was filed for Defendants’ current counsel.

Trial was originally set for October 23, 2023. On August 23, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ ex parte application in part and continued the trial to November 16, 2023.

Defendants now move to continue the trial date to April 22, 2024 or soon thereafter.

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 because their counsel was substituted into the case in July 2023, they have not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that substantive discovery has already taken place. In August 2022, Plaintiffs responded to discovery and underwent physical examinations in January 2023. (Twomey Decl. ¶ 8.) Also, the Defendant driver and only eyewitness to the incident were deposed in April 2023. (Id. ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs also note they are in their eighties and, due to their advanced age, seek to conclude this matter as quickly as possible.

The discovery and pre-trial motion deadlines remain associated with the trial date of October 23, 2023. (See Minute Order Dated August 23, 2023.) No motion to reopen discovery has been filed and Defendants have not provided specific information as to what discovery remains outstanding, the necessity and reasons for that discovery, the diligence by the party seeking to reopen discovery, and the lack of prejudice in light of Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding their age. Defendants have failed to establish good cause to continue the trial.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to continue trial.

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