Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 22STCV26884, Date: 2024-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26884    Hearing Date: January 11, 2024    Dept: 26

Plaintiff's ex parte application for continuance of the jury trial submitted on January 9, 2024 is a repetitive application and has already previously been denied on December 7, 2023.

Plaintiff's ex parte application for continuance of the jury trial submitted on January 9, 2024 is again denied.  The application fails to articulate good cause to justify a continuance of the FSC or trial dates.

The fact that Plaintiff has delayed until recently -- a little more than months before the trial date – to substitute in new counsel fails to demonstrate good cause. The case has been pending for almost 17 months, and the current trial date was set on December 21, 2022 – more than 12 months ago. The Court will presume that former counsel exercised diligence in pursuing discovery and preparing for trial before the substitution of counsel occurred. (If not, the lack of diligence would not justify the requested continuance.) The Court also expects that ordinary prudence would have led new counsel – before accepting the instant case -- to check his/her trial calendar to confirm availability on the current trial date and to review the status of discovery and trial preparation to ensure that new counsel would be ready for trial by the current trial date. Indeed, availability on the current trial date and an ability to prepare for trial by that date would seem to be primary factors to consider in selection of new counsel.

Moreover, from the information provided, it is not at all clear that any Counsel will be engaged in another trial on the date that the instant action is set for trial.  The stipulation does not identify the name and case number for the other trial, the trial date for the other case, the date on which the Court in the other case set the current trial date, the likelihood that the other case will proceed to trial as scheduled on the current trial date, the estimated length of that trial, and the age (filing date) of the other matter that counsel has set for trial.  In any event, there will not be any clarity or certainty as to whether any Counsel will truly be engaged in another trial that conflicts with the trial date in this action until the current trial date.  If on the current trial date one or more Counsel are engaged in trial in another action, then the trial of the instant matter may either trail or be continued to allow Counsel to complete the other trial before commencing trial in the instant action.

In the current application, Plaintiff proposes extending discovery cut-off.  However, Plaintiff fails to explain in the application why he has had insufficient time in the almost 17 months since filing this action to complete discovery and has failed to demonstrate diligence in pursuing discovery.  Plaintiff has also failed to articulate precisely what discovery the parties must still pursue before announcing ready for trial (including naming witnesses to be deposed and written discovery to be propounded and responded to). 

The final status conference remains set for January 23, 2024 at 9:00 AM.

All parties are ordered to download from the court’s website (www.lacourt.org) the standing FSC and trial preparation order for this department (Department 26). All parties must comply with the requirements in Department 26's FSC/trial preparation order.

The trial remains set for February 5, 2024 at 9:30 AM.

The Court Clerk is to give electronic notice to all parties.