Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 21STLC01582 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Defendants Bobi Leonard and Paul Beirold’s Motion to Continue Trial Date is GRANTED. Trial is continued to NOVEMBER 30, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Motion and discovery cut-off dates are to follow the new trial date.

On February 23, 2021, Plaintiff International Paw Angels (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Bobi Leonard and Paul Beirold (“Defendants”) for possession of personal property, conversion, trespass to chattel, and promissory fraud.

On May 17, 2021, Defendants filed a Cross-Complaint for breach of contract and fraud and on September 10, 2021, they filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On December 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice and Application for Writ of Possession. Defendants filed an Opposition to the Application on January 11, 2022, and Plaintiff filed a Reply on January 18, 2022. On January 20, 2022, Defendants filed Objections to Declarations of Joanna Ging and Yeni Lim, as well as supporting evidence attached to Plaintiff’s Reply. On January 25, 2022, the Court granted the Application for the Writ of Possession in favor of the Plaintiff.

On June 21, 2022, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Continue Trial Date. No opposition has been filed.

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (Ibid.) Good cause includes the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness, party, or trial counsel; “the substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;” the addition of a new party; a party’s excused inability to obtain evidence; or a significant, unanticipated change in the case. (Ibid.)

Furthermore, the Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted:

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

(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;

(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.

Here, Defendants state that they have good cause for seeking the continuance. First, Defendants state that their substitution of attorney is considered good cause for a continuance because the prior attorney “did not propound discovery, nor did she respond to any discovery in this case” and thus, the new attorney has “a lot of work to catch up on.” (Kelly Decl. p. 1 ¶ 3.) The new attorney requests additional time to “finish the discovery, amend the cross complaint and continue working on settlement in this case.” (Ibid. p. 2 ¶ 6.) New counsel states that she reserved a date to continue the trial immediately after entering her appearance.[1] (Ibid. p. 1 ¶ 2; Motion pp. 2-3.) Additionally, new counsel is not available for the current trial date of August 23, 2022. (Ibid. ¶ 4.) She also contends that she reached out to opposing counsel regarding stipulation to the continuance but did not receive any response to her request to meet and confer. (Ibid. at ¶ 8.)

Additionally, Defendants cite significant, unanticipated changes in the status of the case since there are discussions of settlement in the case and Defendants are waiting to hear back from the Plaintiff.

Finally, Defendants state that they “would not have the opportunity to present their full case because discovery is outstanding” and responses to discovery may not come in on time.

The Court finds good cause exists to continue trial. Defendants ask for a continuance because they recently retained new counsel who is catching up on the discovery that was not completed by their previous attorney. Since the date of this hearing is the discovery cut of date and the current trial date is August 23, 2022, Defendants will not have an opportunity to conduct discovery without a continuance and develop their case. Furthermore, Defendants’ new counsel is not available on the current date of trial. There have not been any prior continuances, extensions, or delays in this case and Plaintiff has not opposed the Motion, so there is no basis to assume that any of the parties would be prejudiced by a continuance. Thus, having considered the various factors in determining whether trial should be continued, the Court finds that continuing trial will serve the interests of justice in this matter.

Defendants ask to continue the trial date to a new date that is “reasonably practical.” (Mot. p. 2.) To ensure the parties have sufficient time to complete all discovery and discuss the possibility of settlement, Defendants’ request is GRANTED. Trial is continued to NOVEMBER 30, 2022 at 8:30 a.m.

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial Date and Reset Statutory Pretrial and Discovery Deadlines is GRANTED. Trial is continued to NOVEMBER 30, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Motion and discovery cut-off dates are to follow the new trial date.

[1] There is a discrepancy in the dates of appearance that Counsel Kelly refers to in her Declaration and in the Motion. In her Declaration, she states that she first entered appearance in February 2022; however, in the Motion, the date is April 4, 2022. The Court’s records indicate that a Substitution of Attorney was filed on April 4, 2022.