Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV22367, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV22367    Hearing Date: January 25, 2024    Dept: 27

Andreh Gibson v. Yadira Diana Blocker, et al.

 

Thursday, January 25, 2024

 

 

 

 

CASE NUMBER: 20STCV22367

 

[UNOPPOSED]

 

Motion – Defendants Yadira Blocker and Abelina Blocker’s Motion to Continue Trial and All Related Dates

TENTATIVE

            Defendants Yadira Blocker and Abelina Blocker’s Motion to Continue Trial and All Related Dates is GRANTED.

 

Background

            This case stems from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on June 13, 2018. (Complaint, ¶ MV-1.) Andreh Gibson (“Plaintiff”) sued Yadira Diana Blocker and Abelina Blocker (collectively “Defendants”) by filing an initial Complaint on June 12, 2020. The motion before the Court now is Defendants Yadira Blocker and Abelina Blocker’s Motion to Continue Trial and All Related Dates (the “Motion”). No opposition has been filed.    

 

Discussion

 

Legal Standard

            California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that although disfavored, the trial date may be continued for “good cause,” which includes (without limitation):

 

(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;

(5) The addition of a new party if:

            (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or

            (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case;

(6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or

(7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.

(Id., Rule 3.1332(c).)¿¿¿

           

            The court may also consider the following factors: “(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 3.1332(d).)¿¿ ¿

 

Analysis

            Here, Defendants move for a trial continuance and argue that despite the parties’ diligent efforts there is still necessary discovery to be completed. Defendants state that Plaintiff’s written discovery responses, testimony at deposition, and independent medical examination are vital for Defendants to adequately evaluate Plaintiff’s claim and prepare their case. The delay arose out of several extensions granted to Plaintiff to respond to discovery, and then a series of informal discovery conferences to resolve outstanding discovery disputes. Defendants now state that the parties are promptly proceeding with further essential discovery; however, they will not be prepared by the current trial date of February 20, 2024. Therefore, Defendants argue a continuance is necessary.

           

            Although trial has been continued twice before, Defendants point to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c)(6) which permits a continuance when there exists a party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.  Defendants argue that this very subdivision applies here.  The Court agrees. Not only will Defendants be prejudiced without a continuance, but there is also no opposition. In fact, Defendants attach a stipulation signed by both parties agreeing to a continuance. (Declaration of Mark Senior, Exh. A.) Additionally, considering the proximity of the current trial date, the reasonableness of the length of continuance requested, and that there are no alternative means to resolve this issue, a continuance is in the best interests of justice.

                   

Conclusion

            Accordingly, Defendants Yadira Blocker and Abelina Blocker’s Motion to Continue Trial and All Related Dates is GRANTED.

 

 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.