Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case: 23SMCV02259, Date: 2025-06-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23SMCV02259 Hearing Date: June 11, 2025 Dept: 205
|
CHRISTINA HWA, Plaintiff, v. MCDONALD’S RESTAURANT OF CALIFORNIA, INC., et al., Defendants. |
Case No.:
23SMCV02259 Hearing Date: 6/11/25 Trial Date:
8/18/25 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL |
Background
Plaintiff Christina Hwa filed this personal injury action
against defendants McDonald’s Restaurant of California, Inc., Archland Property
II LP, and Does 1-100 on May 23, 2023. Defendant Archland has been dismissed;
McDonald’s answered on June 20, 2023.
Jury trial is now set to begin on August 18, 2025.
McDonald’s moves for an order continuing the trial date to October 20, 2025,
with all trial and pre-trial deadlines, including discovery cutoff and motion
dates, to be based on the new trial date.
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to McDonald’s’
motion on May 29, 2025.
Trial Continuance Standard
“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.
[¶] Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a
continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a
continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the
continuance.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b) & (c).)
In determining good cause,
the Court may consider the parties’ diligence in preparing for trial,
the proximity of the standing
trial date, whether there were previous continuances, the length of the
continuance requested, the availability of alternative means to address the
reason for the continuance, potential prejudice to the parties or witnesses,
the court’s own calendar, and whether the interests of justice are best served
by a continuance or by imposing conditions on the continuance. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 3.1332(d).)
“[W]hile delaying litigation
is generally disfavored in light of efficiency concerns (Gov. Code, § 68607),
those concerns are secondary to the primary function of the courts—to
adjudicate disputes on their merits.” (Mai v. HKT Cal, Inc. (2021) 66
Cal.App.5th 504, 526.)
Analysis
The unopposed motion is granted.
While the case is approximately
two years old, there has been no prior continuance of trial, and McDonald’s
only proposes to continue trial approximately two months. McDonald’s
demonstrates good cause for a continuance because (1) its motion for summary
judgment is currently set for hearing too near the trial date, and (2) additional
discovery will be conducted in response to Plaintiff’s recent supplemental
interrogatory responses. Plaintiff does not oppose any of these contentions.
The Court GRANTS the motion.
The Final Status Conference set
for August 8, 2025 and Jury Trial set for August 18, 2025 are advanced to this
date and vacated.
The Court sets a new Final Status
Conference for December 12, 2025 and Jury Trial for January 6, 2026, both at
8:30 a.m., with all trial and pre-trial deadlines, including discovery cutoff
and motion deadlines, based on the new trial date.
Dated: June 11, 2025
__________________________________________
Edward B. Moreton, Jr.
Judge of the Superior Court