Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV35148, Date: 2024-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35148    Hearing Date: February 1, 2024    Dept: 27

Kourosh Yazdani v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 21STCV35148

[UNOPPOSED]

Motion – Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s Motion to Continue Trial

TENTATIVE

            Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED.

Background

            This case was commenced when Kourosh Yazdani (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint on September 22, 2021 against Costco Wholesale Corporation (Defendant) after slipping and falling while visiting a Costco location. Defendant now files the instant Motion to Continue Trial (Motion). The Motion is unopposed. (Indeed, Plaintiff has agreed with the request.)

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

            This is the first request for a continuance. Defendant argues that good cause exists because: (1) current counsel was recently substituted into this case, (2) the parties have agreed to attend mediation on April 30, 2024, (3) no depositions have been taken at this point, and there is still necessary discovery yet to be completed, and (4) Plaintiff’s counsel has agreed to the requested continuance from the current trial date of March 20, 2024 to October 14, 2024.

            Defendant has demonstrated grounds that taken together exhibit good cause sufficient for a continuance. The completion of discovery is critical to parties being able to present their cases, and it is clear that both parties still have essential discovery that has not been completed. Of course, the parties are expected to act with diligence with regard to discovery, and the Court questions whether they have done so to date. Nonetheless, given that the parties have agreed to attend mediation, the Court is inclined to give the parties time to attend mediation and proceed diligently from there. But, the time requested from mediation is excessive.  With diligence, the parties should need no more than an additional 3 months after mediation to be ready for trial. 

Conclusion

            Accordingly, Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED, but only until FATD 8/1/24.  Pretrial dates to be tied to new trial date.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.