Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 20STCV20936, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV20936    Hearing Date: April 14, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On June 3, 2020, Plaintiff Kostadin Peytchev (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Siguard Ruskedal (“Ruskedal”) and Total Recovery, Inc. (“TR”) for general negligence and assault and battery. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendant Carlos Dominguez (“Dominguez”).

On October 18, 2021, the clerk entered default against TR. On April 5, 2022, Defendants filed an answer. Parties filed a stipulation to set aside default of TR. On December 28, 2022, Intervenor Clear Blue Insurance Company Inc. (“Intervenor”) filed an answer on behalf of Defendants.

On March 20, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to Continue Trial to be heard on April 14, 2023.

Trial is currently scheduled for May 17, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendants request the Court continue trial to September 14, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD

CRC rule 3.1332(b) outlines that “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.”

Under CRC 3.1332(c), The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include “a party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts,” or the unavailability of a party, counsel, or expert due to death, illness or other excusable circumstance. The Court should consider all facts and circumstances relevant to the determination, such as proximity of the trial date, prior continuances, prejudice suffered, whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance, and whether the interests of justice are served. CRC 3.1332(d).

DISCUSSION

Defendants do not provide adequate reasoning for a trial continuance. Defendants only generally state that “parties wish to perform further fact discovery, and to explore potential informal resolution.” There is no specific discovery yet to be completed discussed. There is no discussion as to steps taken to set up mediation. The mere fact that trial is approaching, and all parties have agreed to a continuance is not an adequate basis to grant a continuance. The Court denies the motion, finding there has been no affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.

CONCLUSION

Defendants' Motion to Continue Trial is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.