Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 21STLC04851 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC04851, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC04851 Hearing Date: December 6, 2022 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Valley National Bank

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

(CRC Rule 3.1332)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Valley National Bank’s Motion to Continue Trial Date is GRANTED. Trial is continued to MARCH 22, 2023 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.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of December 1, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of December 1, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On June 30, 2021, Plaintiff Valley National Bank (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Ronald Zamora (“Defendant”) for breach of contract and implied-in-fact contract.

On August 17, 2021, Defendant, in propria persona, filed an Answer to the Complaint. Defendant also filed a Motion to Change Venue on the same day. On March 7, 2022, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Change Venue. (3-7-22 Minute Order.)

On September 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alterative, Summary Adjudication. On November 3, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion. (11-3-22 Minute Order.)

On November 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Continue Trial Date. No opposition has been filed. On November 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Receipt of Opposition indicating that Defendant had not opposed the instant Motion.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

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:

“(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)(1)-(11).)

On November 3, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the ground that the notice of motion and motion were not filed at least 75 days before the hearing date, in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(2). Non-Jury trial is currently scheduled for December 28, 2022. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on November 4, 2022, requesting a “short continuance of the trial date” to provide Plaintiff with additional time to file a motion for summary judgment. (Memorandum p. 1.)

Plaintiff’s Counsel states that she did not inform her assistant about the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(2) and was unaware that the notice and motion were filed less than 75 days before the hearing date. (Eli Decl. ¶¶ 6, 10.) Immediately after learning about the administrative error and the Court’s ruling, Counsel filed the instant Motion to Continue Trial. (Ibid. at ¶ 10.) Plaintiff requests a short continuance for the purpose of re-filing the Motion for Summary Judgment because the current trial date would not allow Plaintiff enough time to re-file the motion. (Ibid. at ¶ 11; Memorandum pp. 2-4.) Plaintiff’s Counsel also states that neither party has previously requested a continuance and she is unaware of any witnesses who intend to appear at the trial scheduled for December 28, 2022. (Eli Decl. ¶¶ 12-13.)

Finally, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not made an effort to participate in the litigation. (Memorandum pp. 3-4.) Defendant has not responded to any discovery requests propounded by Defendant and has not requested any extensions. (Eli Decl. ¶¶ 2-5.) Defendant also did not respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment. (Ibid. at ¶ 8.) Thus, none of the parties would be prejudiced by the continuance. (Memorandum p. 4.)

The Court finds good cause exists to continue trial. Parties have not sought continuances previously and there is no basis to assume that any of the parties would be prejudiced by a continuance. Furthermore, Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and due to an administrative error, Plaintiff was unable to proceed with its motion for summary judgment.

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.

For these reasons, the Court grants a brief continuance of Non-Jury Trial from December 28, 2022, to MARCH 22, 2023 AT 8:30 A.M.

III. Conclusion & Order

Based on the foregoing,

The Parties are ordered to comply with the Standing Order for Department 25, including filing joint exhibit and witness lists at least 10 (ten) days prior to trial.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.