Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 21STCV14039, Date: 2022-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV14039    Hearing Date: October 18, 2022    Dept: 58

Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58

Hearing Date:             October 18, 2022

Case Name:                 Brenda Rangel v. DNH Aero Finishing Inc., et al.

Case No.:                   21STCV14039

Matter:                        Motion to Continue Trial Date

Moving Party:             Defendants DNH Aero Finishing, Inc.; Jose Luis Nerey; Erik Hernandez;                                          Daniel Vasquez

Opposing Party:          Brenda Rangel

Trial Date:                   January 30, 2023

Tentative Ruling:      Defendant’s motion to continue trial date is denied.

Background 

In this employment action, Brenda Rangel (Plaintiff) sues Defendants DNH Aero Finishing Inc., Jose Luis Nerey, Erik Hernandez, and Daniel Vasquez (Vasquez) for discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

All Defendants move to continue the trial date for one week.  As the reason for unavailability, they state that Vasquez plans to attend his son’s wedding during the week of trial.  Plaintiff opposes the motion.  Defendant’s Reply was untimely filed.

Discussion

 “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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted: (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance 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; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subds. (d)(1)-(11).) Additionally, factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subds. (c), (d).) 

Defendants argue that the trial is still several months away; this is the first continuance, and it is only for a week; the only alternative is that all defendants would miss Vasquez’s son’s wedding; and there is no prejudice to any of the parties.

Plaintiff opposes, arguing that Defendants fail to provide sufficient facts to validate their arguments such as providing itineraries or other supporting documentation.  She also argues that notice was improper.[1] 

Defendants replied, arguing that there is no legal authority requiring them to provide specific facts, but that they are willing to do so if the Court requests additional information. 

            Defendants have not shown good cause for a continuance.  They have not provided sufficient information to establish a continuance based on the unavailability of a party because of “excusable circumstances.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)(2).)  Vasquez does not provide the wedding date, merely stating that “During and/or around the time of trial for this action . . . [he] will be out of the country” for his son’s wedding.  (Vasquez Decl., ¶ 2.)  No itineraries are provided nor is it clear when the Defendants anticipate leaving the country and when they will return.  If the wedding is scheduled just prior to the trial date, then Defendants can still conceivably attend the trial.  However, since no details are provided, Defendants fail to meet their burden.

            The trial date was set back on February 8, 2022, but Defendants claim they did not discover the conflict with the wedding date until the end of July.  (Vasquez Decl., ¶ 5.)  Again, Defendants fail to provide any evidence as to when the wedding was scheduled and their diligence in ensuring compliance with the trial date. 

            As Defendants have failed to provide evidence of their unavailability, there is no information on whether the trial conflict is excusable.  Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to continue trial.