Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 23STCV00760, Date: 2024-05-14 Tentative Ruling

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Richard Hernandez, Greg Hernadez, Daniel Hernandez, and Eric Hernandez

Plaintiffs Richard Hernandez, Greg Hernadez, Daniel Hernandez, and Eric Hernandez are tenants of the residential property located at 122 N. Lincoln Avenue, Unit M, Monterey Park, California, 91755 (the “Subject Property”). Defendants Wai Chi Fang and Tusey Yuh Huang own and operate the Subject Property. On January 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants alleging various habitability violations at the Subject Property.

On February 19, 2024, Plaintiffs served Defendants with the Summons and Complaint. Defendants filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Complaint on March 26, 2024, which are set to be heard on June 25, 2024.

On April 9, 2024, Defendants filed this Motion to Continue Trial. Defendants seek an order continuing the trial date of September 16, 2024 to March 17, 2025, or as soon thereafter, and to set all statutory deadlines to the new trial date.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b) outlines that “a party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”

Under 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. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include “a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.” The court should consider all facts and circumstances relevant to the determination, such as proximity of the trial date, prior continuances, prejudice suffered, whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance, and whether the interests of justice are served. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)

Defendants argue good cause exists to continue the trial date because the case is not yet at issue. As Defendants explain, they only recently appeared in this action by filing a Demurrer and Motion to Strike on March 26, 2024. The Demurrer and Motion to Strike are set for hearing on June 25, 2024. As such, Defendants seek a trial continuance to allow Defendants to conduct discovery, file a motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication, and have that motion heard before trial.

Plaintiffs oppose a continuance because this case was filed on January 13, 2023 and trial has been set for almost a year. The argument lacks merit. Plaintiffs served Defendants with the Summons and Complaint on February 19, 2024—which is less than three months ago.

Based on the foregoing, a trial continuance is warranted. Given that Defendants recently appeared in this matter and their Demurrer and Motion to Strike are pending, the case is not yet at issue. Defendants are entitled to conduct discovery and, if they so choose, to file a dispositive motion with sufficient time to be heard before trial. Further, there have been no other continuances of the trial date. For these reasons, the court finds good cause exists to continue the trial date.

The motion is GRANTED. The Final Status Conference scheduled for September 4, 2024 is CONTINUED to June 23, 2025 at 10:00 AM. The Jury Trial scheduled for September 16, 2024 is CONTINUED to July 7, 2025 at 8:30 AM. All discovery cut-off dates, all pretrial deadlines including discovery, expert, and motion cut-off dates are continued to the new trial date of July 7, 2025.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court