Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 20STCV46712, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV46712 Hearing Date: August 25, 2022 Dept: 61
Defendants JTI Electrical and Instrumentation LLC and JTI
Electrical & Instrumentation Inc.’s Motion to Continue Trial and Amend Case
Management Order Timeline is GRANTED in part. Trial shall be continued 120
days, and nondestructive site inspection shall precede Plaintiffs’ service of
the final defect list and final cost of repair.
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
“In passing on the motion
for a continuance, which rests to a great extent in the sound discretion of the
trial court, the trial judge may inquire into the merits of the defense, pass
on any questions presented as to any possible prejudice to either of the
parties which would result from granting or denying the motion, and determine
whether there is good cause therefor.” (Schwartz
v. Magyar House, Inc. (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 182, 188–89.)
Defendants JTI Electrical & Instrumentation LLC and Inc. (Defendants)
move to continue trial and amend the case management order (CMO) timeline in
this complex case. The basis for the motion is Plaintiffs’ failure to adhere to
the CMO deadline to produce a preliminary cost to repair estimate, which was
due by May 18, 2022. Per the original order, site inspections and testing were
to occur in June and July 2022, with Plaintiffs serving final defect lists and
costs of repair on July 8, with percipient and expert witness depositions to
follow in the months thereafter. However, all such efforts have stalled with
Plaintiffs’ failure to produce a preliminary cost of repair. (Motion at p. 6.)
Defendants thus seek a 180-day continuance of trial from its current date of
May 2, 2023. (Motion at p. 8.)
Plaintiffs in opposition do not contest that a continuance is needed, but
take issue with the length of the continuance sought, and certain of the new
CMO timeline dates presented in the motion. Plaintiffs contend that the delay
in the preliminary cost to repair estimate is the result of their expert’s
medical issues, which have necessarily impeded his work schedule. (Opposition
at p. 1.) Plaintiffs argue that at most a three-month continuance is necessary.
(Opposition at p. 1.) As for the particulars of the new CMO timeline,
Plaintiffs ask that they be given until the end of August to serve their
preliminary cost of repair, and further ask that the deadlines to serve final
defect lists and costs of repair be scheduled for after initial site
inspection. (Opposition at p. 3.) Plaintiffs also ask to schedule a date for
mediation. (Ibid.)
All parties thus agree that a continuance is warranted. But as to the
precise nature of this continuance, Plaintiffs have the better argument.
Plaintiffs have delayed providing the preliminary cost of repair for almost
four monoths. Any continuance therefore need not exceed that amount of time.
Additionally, the original CMO provides that initial site inspection is to
precede Plaintiffs’ service of final defect lists and costs of repairs, and
there is little reason for the reversal of that scheduling that Defendants seek
in their motion. Although Defendants in reply contend that this would not allow
sufficient time between the production of the preliminary report and the first
visual inspection, this is the same time-frame provided in the original CMO.
(Reply at p. 4.)
Accordingly, the motion for continuance is GRANTED, and the CMO timeline
amended, upon the terms described by Plaintiffs in their opposition.