Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: BC712633, Date: 2022-12-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC712633    Hearing Date: December 22, 2022    Dept: 28

Motion For Continuance

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.  No opposing papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

            On July 3, 2018, Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (“Plaintiff”) commenced the present action by filing a Complaint for Subrogation Recovery against Lauricia Lorraine Bustamante, Wendy Michelle Perez, and Does 1 through 10 (collectively, “Defendants”). 

            On December 3, 2019, following Plaintiff’s filing of a Request for Entry of Default, the Court entered default against Defendant Lauricia Lorraine Bustamante.

            On December 13, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed Defendant Wendy Michelle Perez from the action, without prejudice.

            On September 23, 2020, following Plaintiff’s filing of a Request for Default Judgment, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Lauricia Lorraine Bustamante in the amount of $40,030.05.

            On March 1, 2022, Defendant Lauricia Lorraine Bustamante (hereinafter, “Defendant Bustamante”), in propria persona, filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment and Dismissal. 

            On June 13, 2022, Defendant Bustamante’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment and Dismissal was granted.  The Court ordered the default judgment entered against Defendant Bustamante set aside and vacated.

            On July 22, 2022, Defendant Bustamante filed an Answer.

            On November 17, 2022, Defendant Bustamante filed the instant Motion For Continuance, as well as a Proof of Service evidencing service of the Motion upon Plaintiff.

            Trial is set for February 7, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

            Defendant Bustamante moves for an Order continuing the trial date in this action to an unspecified date in order to allow Defendant an opportunity to obtain counsel, provide counsel adequate time to review the case, and prepare for trial.  (Notice of Mot., at p. 1:18-21.)

LEGAL STANDARD

            Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, subd. (a).)  Continuances are thus generally disfavored.  (Id., Rule 3.1332, subd. (b).)  Nevertheless, the trial court has discretion to continue trial dates.  (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246.)  Each request for continuance must be considered on its own merits and is granted upon an affirmative showing of good cause.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, subd. (c); Hernandez, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at 1246.)  Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) the unavailability of a party due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) the unavailability of trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) the substitution of trial counsel where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) the addition of a new party if (A) the new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial, or (B) the other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s involvement in the case; (6) a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, subd. (c).)

            The Court must also consider such relevant factors as: (1) the proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial caused by any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) if the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) the court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.  (Cal. Rules of Court., Rule 3.1332, subd. (d).)

DISCUSSION

            The Court finds that Plaintiff’s present Motion is procedurally defective but notes that there is no opposition to it.  In the interest of justice, the Court will continue the trial to October 27, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. and the Final Status Conference to October 13, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.  Both will be in Dept. 28.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant Bustamante’s Motion For Continuance is GRANTED.

            Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Defendant 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.