Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 21STCV21456, Date: 2023-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV21456    Hearing Date: October 17, 2023    Dept: 14

Instant Motion

            Plaintiff now moves this court for an order continuing trial to December 2, 2024.

Decision

            The motion is DENIED.

Discussion

California Rules of Court Rule 3.1332(a) provides that trial dates are to be treated as firm. However, Rule 3.1332(c) provides that, although continuances are “disfavored,” requests should be considered on an individual basis. That subsection also includes a non-exhaustive list of possible grounds for a continuance.

            Plaintiff bases their motion on four things: (1) that Plaintiff’s counsel anticipates being engaged in another trial on that date, (2) Defense has agreed to the continuance, (3) there is no prejudice, and (4) counsel has three other, similar cases they want to try before this one, but which are currently set for trial after this one.

            None of these is a sufficient reason for a continuance at this time, especially in a case which will be (a) nearing three years old on its currently-scheduled trial date, and (b) the oldest case this court has set for trial on that date.

            Review of the other case (Case No. 21 STCV 02175) reveals a wrongful termination case of ordinary scope which is set for trial on February 26, 2024, in Department 71, before Judge Daniel Crowley. So much may happen in the ensuing months. That case may settle. It may be continued. Judge Crowley himself may be engaged in trial on another matter. If the court were to continue trials based on the speculation that, four months from now, counsel might be engaged in another matter, the court would never try any cases.

            Likewise, while the stipulation between the parties and lack of prejudice are relevant factors under Rule 3.1332(d)(5) & (9), they are not in themselves sufficient to justify a continuance. The court has an obligation to process the cases assigned to it; if one case is allowed to linger merely because counsel want to, other cases are deprived of the court’s attention and space.

            Finally, counsel’s decision that three other, similar cases are more ready and should be tried first is wholly unexplained. Only one of those other three cases is older than this one, and even that case is only older by one day. The other three cases were deemed unrelated to this one by Judge Michelle Williams Court on September 16, 2021. They remained assigned to a different department and have proceeded on their own track. Case No. 21 STCV 21273 got its current July 2024 trial date four months ago, on June 5, 2023. Case Nos. 21 STCV 28191 and 21 STCV 29882 got their current September 2024 and October 2024 trial dates at the same time. One would expect this case, since it has been at the front of the line for the last several months, to be the most prepared, not the least.

Conclusion

            This case is simply too old to be continued based on speculation about where counsel may be months from now. It is likewise too old to be continued based solely on counsel’s agreement, or based on counsel’s desire to try three other cases, two of which are actually younger than this one, first. Therefore, the motion is DENIED. The dates will stand as currently scheduled.