Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case: 23SMCV01863, Date: 2025-05-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23SMCV01863 Hearing Date: May 1, 2025 Dept: 205
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – West District
Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205
PETR VOJAS, Plaintiff, v. RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No.: 23SMCV01863 Hearing Date: May 1, 2025 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES
BACKGROUND
This case arises from a car accident. Plaintiff Petr Vojas claims Defendant Jacob Gonzalez rear-ended him. At the time of the accident, Gonzalez was employed by Defendant Restoration Hardware, Inc. Plaintiff has sued Defendants for motor vehicle negligence.
This hearing is on Defendants’ motion to continue trial. Trial is currently set for June 9, 2025. Defendants seek a continuance to August 25, 2025, because Defendants’ lead trial counsel is unavailable due to “personal family commitments.”
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. (See 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 p. 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. (Id., rule 3.1332, subd. (d).)
DISCUSSION
The Court concludes that a two month continuance is not warranted. Defendants contend their lead trial counsel is unavailable for trial due to “personal family commitments.” There is no further explanation as to what these commitments are, whether they were unexpected, and to the extent they were not, why counsel did not raise these commitments at the trial setting conference.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to continue trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 1, 2025 ___________________________
Edward B. Moreton, Jr.
Judge of the Superior Court