Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 21STCV41534, Date: 2023-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41534    Hearing Date: April 18, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Bruce Steele’s Motion to Continue Trial

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

BACKGROUND

On November 10, 2021, Plaintiff Angelica Yuritzi Contreras Garibay (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Washington State University (“WSU”) and Bruce Steele (“Steele”) for negligence and negligent entrustment. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendants Spokane Community College (“SCC”), Community College of Spokane Association for Higher Education (“CCS”), Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company of Los Angeles, LLC (“RAC”) and Washington State University, Community Colleges of Spokane (“WSU CCS”).

On March 21, 2022, Steele filed an answer.

On April 25, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed WSU, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

On March 22, 2023, Steele filed a Motion to Continue Trial set to be heard on April 18, 2023.

Trial is currently scheduled for May 10, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Steele requests the Court continue trial to November 8, 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

Steele requests the Court grant a continuance on the basis that some Defendants have only recently been served and that the pleadings in this case have only recently been settled, leaving only one month to conduct discovery prior to trial. The Court does not find this to be good cause to grant Steele a continuance.

First, the fact Plaintiff named and served other Defendants does not necessarily impact Steele’s ability to prepare for trial. Steele offers no explanation as to why the recent addition of parties would impact his ability to prepare for trial. Therefore, there is no indication of an excused inability to obtain essential discovery.

Steele also argues that the pleadings were only recently settled following the March 13th Court ruling on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Court does not find this to be good reason to grant a continuance. Steele filed an answer on March 21, 2022; he filed the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in January 2023, and the Court issued a ruling 2 months later. Steele had over a year from the time he answered to conduct discovery—he could have concurrently conducted discovery while drafting the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Court cannot grant continuances merely based on the fact a Motion for Judgment on the

Pleadings is filed, especially when said motion is filed 9 months after that party’s initial answer. There is a reasonable expectation that a party who has filed an answer is meaningfully engaged in the discovery process. Steele has not provided any explanation as to why he was unable to complete discovery under these circumstances.

The mere fact that multiple parties have agreed to the continuance is not an affirmative showing of good cause. There has been no stipulation filed in support of this alleged agreement, nor has Plaintiff filed any papers in support.

Based on the above, the Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Bruce Steele’s 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.