Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV27858, Date: 2024-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV27858    Hearing Date: February 20, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On July 28, 2021, Plaintiff Maria Teresa Villareal (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Ross Stores, Inc.; Ross Dress For Less, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”).

On January 24, 2024, Defendants filed this motion jointly with Plaintiff to continue trial and all related dates for four months or the first available date thereafter. This is the third request for a trial continuance.

II.          LEGAL STANDARDS

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (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, subd. (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, subd. (d).)

III.        ANALYSIS

Defendants argue good cause exists to continue the trial date because the parties have not completed written discovery, depositions of key witnesses have yet to take place, the parties are attempting to settle the case informally, and all parties have agreed to a trial continuance.  

These bases provide no insight into why in the almost three years that this matter has been pending the above has not occurred.  Accordingly, at this point, it is the Court’s position that good cause for a continuance has not been established.  The Court will hear from the parties.

       Dated this 20th day of February 2024