Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 21STCV442024, Date: 2024-02-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV442024    Hearing Date: February 5, 2024    Dept: 61

Plaintiffs Qasim Zaidi, Michael Whitted, Carolawyn Smith, Beryesha Hollins, and Cassandra Thompkins’ Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs to give notice.

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.)

In evaluating a request for continuance, the court should consider:

(1) The proximity of the trial date;

(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to 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.

(CRC Rule 3.1332, subd. (d).)

Plaintiffs Qasim Zaidi, Michael Whitted, Carolawyn Smith, Beryesha Hollins, and Cassandra Thompkins (Plaintiffs) seek a continuance of trial and the discovery cut-off from its current appointed date of March 5, 2024, to some date 90 days or more in the future. (Proposed Order.) Plaintiffs in their memorandum of points and authorities state that they have been unable to conduct discovery, that their counsel has a family medical emergency, and that they have not been able to coordinate with their experts, due to unexpected conflicts and retirements. (Motion at pp. 4–6.)

Plaintiffs’ counsel testifies that Casey O. Jones, Plaintiffs’ consulted expert on diminution in value, informed them on December 22, 2023, that he is retiring at the end of February this year and won’t be available for trial. (Egbase Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff has consulted Paul O’Riordan and Paul Chandler to serve as diminution in value experts in Jones’ stead, but it is expected that they will not have their reports ready in sufficient time for trial. (Egbase Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs also notes that their causation and liability expert, David Wilshaw, is currently undergoing a conflict check for his participation in the present action. (Egbase Decl. ¶¶ 9–10.) Plaintiff also claims that Defendants on December 28, 2024, served them with requests for production to which their counsel’s holiday schedules left them with insufficient time to respond. (Egbase Decl. ¶ 11.) Thus the sought continuance is to permit Plaintiffs to obtain new expert witnesses and respond to Defendant’s requests. (Egbase Decl. ¶ 12.)

Defendants argue that any prejudice resulting from proceeding with trial as scheduled is the product of Plaintiffs’ failure to diligently conduct discovery and communicate with their experts. (Opposition at pp. 2–3.)

The factors favor allowing a continuance here. Plaintiffs have sought a continuance a reasonable amount of time ahead of trial, which is set to begin one month from the date of hearing. The complaint in this matter was filed on November 15, 2021, and trial was set for its current date at the March 23, 2022 case management conference. No continuances have been ordered since that time. The continuance sought is not of a long duration, and the prejudice to Defendants from delay shall be minimal. Rather, Plaintiffs would be prejudiced from permitting trial to go forward with doubt as to their ability to submit expert testimony. The factors favor granting the continuance.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.