Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 20STCV17462, Date: 2022-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: December 21, 2022

Case Name: Chia v. RTS Systems PS, et al.

Case No.: 20STCV16336

Matter: Motion to Continue Trial Date

Moving Party: Defendants RTI Systems PS, RTI Systems Inc., and John Thompson

Responding Party: Plaintiff Brandon Chia

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is denied.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This is an employment and wage and hour suit.  The parties stipulated for a continuance of the trial date from September 21, 2022, to February 6, 2023, so as to attempt a settlement.

Defendants RTI Systems PS, RTI Systems Inc., and John Thompson now seek to continue the February 6, 2023, trial date by 90 days because the settlement has been impacted by Defendants entering into an agreement with the IRS to pay significant back taxes.  Defendants contend they need time to propose a settlement to the IRS that will not result in the IRS initiating an involuntary bankruptcy.  Defendants further contend that trial will be a waste of time because any judgment against Defendants will likely also trigger a bankruptcy.  Defendants represent that they will likely initiate a voluntary bankruptcy before any trial.  

Plaintiff Brandon Chia opposes a continuance, primarily arguing that (1) Defendants’ tax-based reasons do not relate to the California Rules of Court’s factors for determining whether a continuance is warranted; (2) a continuance is unwarranted because in 90 days Defendants will still be indebted to the IRS, such that the situation will not be different and Defendants can keep asking for continuances for the duration of their 7-year agreement with the IRS; and (3) a settlement isn’t possible with the IRS’s constraints.  Plaintiff requests that if a continuance is granted, then the discovery cut-off dates not be extended. 

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332 provides, “In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include: (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.”

The Court certainly has discretion to continue a trial date so as to facilitate a settlement.  This is the ultimate basis for the instant request.  Therefore, the decision hinges on whether a settlement is reasonably possible.  Defendants seem to state that a settlement is possible, while Plaintiff asserts the opposite. This will be further discussed at the Motion hearing, but, for the time-being, the Motion is denied to the extent Plaintiff seems unwilling to settle.  

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.