Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV22321, Date: 2024-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22321    Hearing Date: September 25, 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. 

Please note: The Court is unavailable to hear oral argument on the motion this afternoon. If all parties submit, the tentative ruling will be adopted as the order of the Court. If a party requests oral argument, the hearing will be continued to either September 30, 2024 or October 2, 2024.

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Defendant City of Pomona (“Defendant”) moves to continue trial and all related dates. No opposition has been filed.

BACKGROUND

            The complaint was filed on July 12, 2022 alleging negligence based on a motor vehicle accident. Trial was initially set for January 9, 2024.

            Defendant’s answer was filed on September 22, 2022.

            On October 27, 2023, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and all related dates to May 8, 2024.

            On March 22, 2024, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and all related dates to November 8, 2024.

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

On August 16, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion to continue trial for six months, because its trial counsel, Kenton E. Moore, unexpectedly passed away on August 11, 2024. (Quiller Decl. ¶ 4.) New counsel has been assigned and requires additional time to become familiar with the matter and prepare for trial. Defendant’s counsel also declares the six-months continuance is “based on the calendar of this Court, opposing counsel, and my own Trial calendar.” (Id. ¶ 6.)   

Defendant’s counsel has not set forth specific facts describing his trial calendar, or why six months is necessary to familiarize and prepare for trial. At the same time, no opposition has been filed for this motion. Therefore, given Defendant’s counsel’s unexpected death, the Court finds good cause to continue trial and related dates. However, in light of the lengthy continuance requested, no further continuance will be granted absent sufficient good cause.

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

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to continue trial and all related dates.

The Final Status Conference is continued to April 21, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Trial is continued to May 5, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

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.