SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

Cheri Russell (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against the Michael Lenox (“Lenox”, erroneously sued as Michelle Lenox) and The Hertz Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”) on September 22, 2020 for damages arising out of a motor vehicle collision. 

The parties stipulated to continue the trial from February 3, 2023 to April 3, 2023.  (Motion, Exh. A, Stipulation.)  On December 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to continue trial. 

Rule of Court 3.1332 authorizes a trial continuance on an affirmative showing of good cause.  Pursuant to Rule 3.1332, in ruling on an application or motion for continuance, the court must consider “a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; [t]he proximity of the trial date; [w]hether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; [t]he length of the continuance requested; . . . [t]he prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; . . . [w]hether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; [w]hether interests of justice are best served by a continuance; and [a]ny other relevant facts.”  (Rule of Court 3.1332(c)(6); Rule of Court 3.1332(d).) 

Here, trial is less than one month away, and the parties request a continuance of two months.  (Motion, Exh. A, Stipulation.)  This would be the second continuance in this case.  (Stoker Decl. ¶ 4.)  Neither party would be prejudiced if the continuance is granted.  (Stoker Decl. ¶ 7.)  Both parties have conducted significant discovery, including the depositions of Plaintiff and Defendant Lenox.  (Stoker Decl. ¶ 3.)  If the continuance is granted, the parties seek to do more discovery and determine whether mediation is appropriate to resolve this case informally.  (Motion pp. 2-3.)  At the very least, a continuance would help the parties litigate the case more effectively.  (Motion p. 3.)  Even though the parties have not demonstrated a strong case for a continuance, the parties will be provided an opportunity to present their case fully and fairly, given that they are obviously unprepared for trial at this time.  (Taylor v. Bell (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1007; Hays v. Viscome (1953) 122 Cal.App.2d 135, 140; Palomar Mortgage Company v. Lister (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 236, 239; Cohen v. Herbert (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 488, 495.)  The Court finds sufficient good cause for granting a continuance but puts the parties on notice that they should expect no more, particularly under facts like these.  They are being given an opportunity to prepare for trial and conduct alternative dispute resolution, and they should use it.
 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.  The February 3, 2023 Trial is continued to April 10, 2023 at 8:00 a.m. in Department 31. The January 20, 2023 Final Status Conference is continued to March 22, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All trial related dates will be continued consistent with the new trial date including all discovery deadlines. 

Moving party to give notice. 

Page Break 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 4th day of January 2023