Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV43742, Date: 2022-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV43742    Hearing Date: December 20, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant Martinez Enterprises, Inc.’s Motion to Continue Trial

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On December 5, 2019, Plaintiffs Michael Martinez (“Martinez”) and Martinez Enterprises, Inc. (“ME”) filed this action against Defendants Nathan Rene Anaya (“Anaya”) and Richard Munoz (“Munoz”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On January 27, 2020, the clerk entered default against Anaya.

On March 6, 2020, Munoz filed a denial and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Anaya for indemnification, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief, motor vehicle negligence and property damages.

On April 1, 2020, Anaya filed an answer.

On September 3, 2020, Plaintiffs Richard Munoz (“Munoz”) and Elizabeth Verdugo (“Verdugo”) filed this action against Defendants Anaya, Martinez, ME and Anthony Jackson (“Jackson”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On November 20, 2020, Jackson, Martinez and ME filed an answer.

Cases were consolidated on May 11, 2021.

On November 28, 2022, ME filed a Motion to Continue Trial to be heard on December 20, 2022. On December 7, 2022, Munoz and Verdugo filed an opposition. On December 12, 2022, Jackson, Martinez and ME filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for January 26, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

ME requests the Court continue trial to May 2023.

Munoz and Verdugo request the Court deny the motion.

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

Anaya is currently incarcerated, preventing ME from being able to conduct Anaya’s deposition. Anaya’s counsel did not stipulate to allow his deposition. ME has an upcoming motion to compel Anaya’s deposition, set to be heard after the current trial date.

Munoz and Verdugo oppose the motion on the basis that Defendants have had ample time to take Anaya’s deposition prior to trial; Defendants waited until two months before the continued trial date to file a motion to compel. Anaya appeared in this action two years ago, providing ample time for his deposition.

However, Anaya’s current prison requires a Court order to take Anaya’s deposition. ME attempted to get a stipulation, in order to expedite the request, but failed to do so.

The Court finds grounds for a continuance, based on the fact that Anaya’s incarceration status provided barriers to taking his deposition.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Martinez Enterprises, Inc.’s Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED. Trial is continued to June 19, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Final Status Conference is June 5, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. All discovery and related dates are set to trail 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.