Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV15543, Date: 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV15543    Hearing Date: February 27, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendants Neal L. Dem, Karen E. Dem and Dem Holdings, Inc.’s Motion to Continue Trial

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

BACKGROUND

On April 23, 2021, Plaintiff Michael Darienzo (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Better Office Products, Inc. (“BOP Inc.”), Better Office Products, LLC (“BOP LLC”), and Southern Pacific Railroad (“SPR”) for general negligence and premises liability. On June 29, 2021, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendants Neal L. Dem (“Neal”), Karen E. Dem (“Karen”), MKM Oakdale2, LLC (“MKM”), and Dem Holdings, Inc. (“Dem Holdings”). On October 7, 2021, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Michael Zarabi (“Zarabi”). On February 28, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendants Francisco Romero (“Romero”) and Romero General Builders, Inc. (“RGB”). 

On October 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint.

 On March 16, 2022, Neal and Karen filed an amended answer. On May 27, 2022, Dem Holding filed an answer. On May 27, 2022, MKM and Zarabi filed an answer. On November 9, 2022, the Court dismissed MKM and Zarabi, with prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

 On December 29, 2021, Dem Holdings filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Nordoff Investments (“Cross-Defendant”) for equitable indemnity, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief, and comparative negligence. 

On January 26, 2023, Karen, Neal and Dem Holdings (“Moving Defendants”) filed a Motion to Continue Trial to be heard on February 27, 2023. On February 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On February 17, 2023, Moving Defendants filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for June 20, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Moving Defendants request the Court continue trial to October 20, 2023.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion or continue the hearing until after March 3, 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

Moving Defendants request the Court continue trial to allow parties to exhaust all potential avenues of resolution—however, parties recently attempted mediation that did was not successful. There is no provided potential date for further mediation. The Court will not grant a continuance based on the potential of mediation. Similarly, the Court will not grant a continuance based on the potential joining of another party, when Moving Defendants have yet to take steps to include said party. The mere filing of a claim against the City of Los Angeles is not enough to warrant a continuance, especially given that Moving Defendants will only conditionally seek to add the City as a party.

Moving Defendants still have ample time prior to trial to complete discovery as trial is approximately 4 months away. The Court does not find good cause at this time and will not grant a continuance.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Neal L. Dem, Karen E. Dem and Dem Holdings, Inc.’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.