Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 21STV01663, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STV01663    Hearing Date: May 16, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendants Richard Lam, Helen Lam, Amy Lam, 380 Sierra Madre, LLC and Lam Property Management’s Motion to Continue Trial

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

BACKGROUND

On January 14, 2022, Plaintiff Marguerita Ludwig (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Richard Lam (“Richard”), Helen Lam (“Helen”), Amy Lam (“Amy”), 380 Sierra Madre, LLC (“Sierra”), Lam Property Management (“LPM”) and Estate of William Jordison, Deceased (“Estate”) for premises liability.

On December 16, 2022, Estate filed an answer.

On March 15, 2023, Richard, Helen, Amy, Sierra and LPM filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Estate for declaratory relief – implied partial indemnity and declaratory relief – equitable apportionment.

On March 23, 2023, Richard, Helen, Amy Sierra and LPM (“Moving Defendants”) filed a Motion to Continue Trial to be heard on April 27, 2023. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to May 16, 2023.

Trial is currently scheduled for July 14, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Moving Defendants request the Court continue trial 90 days.

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

Moving Defendants allege that Plaintiff never served the complaint on any of Moving Defendants; Moving Defendants instead voluntarily appeared in the case in March of 2023. This is over a year after the initial filling date for the complaint. Moving Defendants promptly served discovery after appearing but have reason to believe discovery will not be completed within the 90-day period before the discovery cut-off. The Court agrees. Plaintiff’s delay in serving the complaint has unduly prejudiced Moving Defendants from being able to properly prepare for trial. The Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Richard Lam, Helen Lam, Amy Lam, 380 Sierra Madre, LLC and Lam Property Management’s Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED. Trial is continued to November 21, 2023, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 28 in the Spring Street Courthouse. The Final Status Conference is continued to November 7, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.in Department 28 in the Spring Street Courthouse. All other trial related deadlines are now based on the new trial date.

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.