Judge: Glenn R. Salter, Case: 20-1152098, Date: 2022-11-03 Tentative Ruling

The motion of the defendants to continue trial is DENIED without prejudice.

The court has reviewed the criteria set forth in Rule 3.1332 of the California Rules of Court.

The current trial date was set in June.  The mere fact that the attorney handling the matter at the prior hearing did not know about Mr. Wulfsson’s vacation plans is not sufficient good cause to justify another trial continuance.  Even if it were, the defendants failed to notify the other side (and the court) as soon as counsel became aware of the scheduling conflict.  Instead, counsel waited.

The court notes that while Mr. Wulffson submits a declaration indicating that he had a pre-planned vacation during the time set for trial, conspicuously absent is any proof of that vacation—including such items as airline tickets—or any proof as to when it was booked.

The court is also taken aback by counsel’s request for a specific date based on his “trial schedule.”  The implication is that there are earlier dates where he will be in trial in other matters he would rather try.  That is not good cause for the length of the continuance requested.

Although the court appreciates the fact that his client has only authorized Mr. Wulffson to try the case, there is sufficient time in advance of the currently scheduled trial date to obtain other authorization and for other counsel within the firm to be ready for trial.

The plaintiff shall give notice.