Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV21099, Date: 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV21099    Hearing Date: October 5, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant Kenton Johnsen’s Motion to Continue Trial

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

BACKGROUND

On June 4, 2021, Plaintiff Mark Kudsi (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Kenton Johnsen (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On August 23, 2021, Defendant filed an answer.

On September 9, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Continue Trial to be heard on October 5, 2022. On September 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a reply. On September 26, 2022, Defendant filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for December 2, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant requests the Court continue trial to April 2023.

Plaintiff requests 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

Defendant states there are two identified eyewitnesses that Defendant has been unable to contact for a deposition; Defendant has attempted to serve one of them at their identified address five times, with no success. There is no indication that Defendant has only recently learned of these eyewitnesses, meaning Defendant has had months to contact and search for these individuals. The fact that Defendant only recently attempted to notice their depositions is not good cause to continue trial. All other discovery is set to finish prior to trial and is insufficient basis to warrant a continuance.

Parties have agreed to mediate the case on November 9, 2022, less than a month prior to trial. Plaintiff, however, does not wish to delay trial based on the mediation date, and notes he would have refused mediation had he known it was to be used as justification for a continuance. The Court agrees with Plaintiff—parties agreed to the mediation date knowing full well its proximity to trial. Mediation that is set to occur approximately a month prior to trial is not, alone, good cause to continue trial. The Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Kenton Johnsen’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.