Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 20STCV11840, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV11840 Hearing Date: January 13, 2023 Dept: 68
This case involves a house that was sold to Plaintiffs in 2017 that they learned was in violation of septic tank setback laws. (Motion at p. 3.) They subsequently filed this action against the sellers of the house on March 25, 2020. The case was originally assigned to Judge Lu in Department 26, with an original trial date of April 4, 2022. (Motion at p. 4.) On January 28, 2022, a defendant that had been recently added (and has since settled out of the case) filed a peremptory challenge to Judge Lu. (Motion at p. 4.) The case was then reassigned to Judge Mooney in Department 68, and the case was reset for trial on July 10, 2023. (Motion at p. 4; Wilkerson Decl., ¶ 4.)
In a motion filed on December 14, 2022, Plaintiff requested that the trial date be advanced from July 10, 2023, by at least 90 days to April 3, 2023, or another date around that time. (Motion at p. 3.) Plaintiff based this request on the potential for prejudice to Plaintiff created by the later date and principles of fairness. (Motion at p. 7.) No opposition has been filed by any of the defendants.
Legal Standard and Analysis
Trial courts have the inherent power to control their own process and calendar. (See CCP 128(a)(8) (“Every court shall have the power to . . . amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice”).)
There are only two requirements to advance trial: (1) the making of a noticed motion or ex parte application; and (2) an affirmative showing of good cause based on a declaration served and filed with the motion or application. (See Rule of Court 3.1335(a)-(b).)
Here, Plaintiff has not shown good cause to advance the trial date beyond a desire to move up the trial date. The Court declines to use its discretion to change the current trial date.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s motion to advance the trial date is DENIED.