Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 21STCV24488, Date: 2024-11-15 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed. Any opposition was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

This action arises out of a dispute over the enforcement of a money judgment. The currently operative fourth amended complaint (the “4AC”) alleges: (1) statutory voidable transfers; and (2) common law voidable transfers.

On October 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Continue Trial (the “Motion”). The Motion is unopposed.

Code Civ. Proc. § 128(a)(8) provides that the court has the power to “amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice.” “[T]he power to determine when a continuance should be granted is within the discretion of the trial court.” (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603.) A trial court has wide latitude in the matter of calendar control including the granting or denying of continuances. (Park Motors, Inc. v. Cozens (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 12, 18.)

A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or ex parte application, with supporting declarations. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(b).) The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered. (Ibid.)

Each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits according to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c). The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c).) Good cause may be present where a party has not been unable “to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts” or there has been a “significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c)(6)-(7).)

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332 sets forth a list of non-exhaustive factors to be analyzed when determining whether good cause for a trial continuance is present. A court considers factors such as: (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. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(d).)

Plaintiff asks that the Court continue the trial of this matter, now set for January 27, 2025, for six months, to July 15, 2025, and that all discovery, motion cut-off, and dates related to trial date will be based on the new trial date. The trial date has previously been continued four times.

The Motion is made on the grounds that Plaintiff has been unable to obtain essential evidence despite diligent efforts (Rule 3.1332(c)(6)); that discovery will not be completed sufficiently before the existing trial date (Rule 3.1332(c)(6)); that this case has taken longer than usual to prepare for trial (Rule 3.1332(d)(l l)); and that the interests of justice are best served by a continuance (Rule 3.1332(d)(10)). The Motions is supported by Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration showing that Plaintiff has been unable to obtain essential evidence he needs for trial despite diligent efforts, and, as a result, he has been unable to complete discovery sufficiently before the existing trial date.

The current trial date is just two months away and Plaintiff is seeking a short continuance of six months. This case was filed on July 2, 2021, so there is no issue yet with the five-year rule for bringing cases to trial. The Court cautions the parties that it expects cooperation in discovery and that the case will be ready for trial on the date it will be setting through this order.

In light of these facts, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. Trial in this matter, currently scheduled for January 27, 2025, is continued to July 28, 2025. The Final Status Conference, currently scheduled for January 14, 2025, is continued to July 14, 2025. All pre-trial deadlines and briefing schedules are continued in accordance with the new dates.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court