Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 19TRCV01050, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19TRCV01050    Hearing Date: August 9, 2022    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                          August 9, 2022

Moving Parties:                      Defendants Laura Gehley and Mark Gehley

Responding Party:                  Plaintiff, Michael Dyberg (limited opposition)

Motion to Continue Trial

            The court considered the moving and opposing papers.

RULING

            The motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

On November 22, 2019, plaintiff Michael Dyberg filed this action against defendants Laura Gehley and Mark Gehley alleging cause of action for (1) defamation and (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On May 5, 2020, defendant and cross-complainant Laura Gehley filed a Cross-Complaint against plaintiff for (1) sexual battery, (2) battery and assault, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Trial is set for August 16, 2022.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  (CRC rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (Ibid.)  

Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances, (2) the unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances, (3) the unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances, (4) the substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice, (5) the addition of a new party if the new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial, or if 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. (Ibid.)

In ruling on the motion, the Court must consider all the facts and circumstances relevant to the determination.  Courts may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted:  (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance of trial due to 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; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial. (See generally, CRC, rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)  

Additionally, factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; the proximity of the trial date; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (CRC, rule 3.1332(c), (d).)

 DISCUSSION

            Defendants request a trial continuance. Defendants indicate that they recently transitioned to pro se litigants due to financial reasons, and they received the case files on June 15, 2022. Defendants further state they must borrow a computer when they are able and the preparation for trial at the current date of August 16, 2022 is taking away the defendants’ ability to parent their two children.

            Plaintiff does not oppose the motion but asks that the discovery deadlines are not extended. The court notes that defendants have not requested the cut off dates be extended and as such the pre trial cutoffs are not extended by this order.

Accordingly, the court finds good cause for the trial continuance. The motion is GRANTED.

            Defendants are ordered to give notice of ruling.