Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC07293, Date: 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC07293     Hearing Date: March 21, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Manuel Lopez

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

(CRC Rule 3.1332)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Manuel Lopez’s Motion to Continue Trial Date is GRANTED.

The Court continues the trial date to October 5, 2023, at 8:30 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)                 NONE

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 NONE

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     NONE

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of March 16, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of March 16, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On October 6, 2021, Plaintiff Manuel Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Ricardo Mata Ontiveros (“Defendant”) arising out of an alleged automobile accident that took place on January 12, 2020.

On February 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Continue Trial Date (“Motion”).  The following day, Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion.

As Defendant has not been served with the summons and complaint or the instant Motion, no opposition has been filed.

II.              Legal Standard

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).)

III.            Discussion

Plaintiff moves to continue the trial date to October 5, 2023, or another date convenient to the Court, along with all discovery and motion cut-off dates.  (Am. Mot. p. 2.)  Trial is currently set for April 5, 2023.  (10-6-21 Third Amended Standing Order.)  Plaintiff’s counsel states that given that his staff were working remotely, it was only recently discovered that the staff member assigned to the instant case did not send the Summons and Complaint for service prior to leaving the firm in 2022.  (Am. Mot. - Karlin Decl. ¶ 5.)  Plaintiff has now retained a private investigator to help him locate and serve Defendant Ontiveros, as he has been unable to serve Defendant.  (Ibid. at ¶ 6.)  Counsel adds that he will be out of the country on a prepaid family vacation on April 5, 2023.  (Ibid. at ¶ 7.)

            The Court finds that there is good cause to continue the trial due to counsel’s unavailability, the proximity of the trial date, and lack of prior continuances.  The Court also finds that interests of justice would be best served by a continuance due to counsel’s failure to serve Defendant and Plaintiff’s current efforts to locate Defendant for service.

For this reason, Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial Date is GRANTED.

The Court continues the trial date to October 5, 2023, at 8:30 in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  Motion and discovery cut-off dates are to follow the new trial date.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Plaintiff Manuel Lopez’s Motion to Continue Trial Date is GRANTED.

The Court continues the trial date to October 5, 2023, at 8:30 in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  Motion and discovery cut-off dates are to follow the new trial date.

An Order to Show Cause re: Failure to File Proof of Service is set for May 23, 2023 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 25, Spring Street Courthouse.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.