Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV30501, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30501    Hearing Date: November 21, 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

Defendant University of Southern California (“Defendant”) moves to continue trial. No opposition has been filed.

BACKGROUND

            The complaint was filed on September 19, 2022. Trial was initially set for March 18, 2024.

            Defendant filed its answer on October 20, 2022.

            On October 26, 2022, Defendant filed a Notice of removal to federal court.

            On February 16, 2023, a notice of remand back to the Superior Court, was filed.

            On March 29, 2023, at the trial setting conference, trial and related dates were set for September 10, 2024.

            On March 22, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint.

            On April 2, 2024, pursuant to stipulation, the Court continued trial and related dates to March 19, 2025. The Court also stated: “No further continuance absent sufficient good cause.”

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

Trial is currently set for March 19, 2025. Defendant requests a continuance to August 19, 2025.

According to Defendant, the depositions of Plaintiffs, and co-defendants Su and Li need to be taken. Plaintiffs and Su reside in China and therefore, their depositions will need to be taken in Hong Kong or Macau. Co-defendant Li splits his time between China and the United States; his deposition will take place when he is in the United States. Plaintiffs do not speak English, and therefore will require an interpreter at their deposition. Defendant also asserts that 2400 pages of documents produced in this case are in Chinese and will need to be translated.

According to Defendant, its previous handling attorney for this case, Robert K. Dixon from Sanders Roberts LLP, suffered an unexpected loss of a parent which negatively impacted his work; as a result, Dixon was nonresponsive to Plaintiffs’ multiple attempts to schedule the deposition of witness James Savoca. As a result, Defendant changed firms; Defendant’s current counsel, Jerome Friedberg (“Friedberg”), substituted into this case on October 1, 2024. Defendant contends more time is needed to complete discovery so it can prepare the summary judgment motion it intends to file. Defendant also asserts that Plaintiffs have stated their intention to depose six additional USC witnesses.

No opposition has been filed. According to Defendant, all parties have stipulated to the continuance or agreed not to oppose this motion. The Court notes that the length of continuance requested is long, and no reasonable timeline is provided regarding the depositions. The Court admonishes the parties that this trial date is firm, and there shall be no further request for continuance. The parties must diligently complete discovery and prepare the case for trial.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

The Final Status Conference is continued to August 5, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Trial is continued to August 19, 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.