Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV03165, Date: 2023-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03165    Hearing Date: November 20, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Myers & Sons Hi-Way Safety, Inc., Hi-Way Safety Rentals, Inc., and Alejandro Lopez (“Defendants”)   

RESPONDING PARTY: N/A

I.            INTRODUCTION

This is an action arising from an alleged motor vehicle accident. On January 26, 2022, Plaintiff Cristopher Vincent Verrette (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Myers & Sons Hi-Way Safety, Inc., Hi-Way Safety Rentals, Inc., Myers & Sons Inc., and Alejandro Lopez alleging a single cause of action for motor vehicle.

On October 19, 2023, Defendants filed and served a motion for an order continuing the trial in this matter and all related dates (the “Motion”). Defendants seek to continue the trial to July 10, 2024, or to another later date convenient for the Court and the parties. On October 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed and served a Notice of Non-Opposition to the Motion. Non-jury trial in this action is currently set for January 26, 2024.

II.    DISCUSSION

          Code Civ. Proc. § 128(a)(8) provides that the court has the power to “amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice.” “[T]he power to determine when a continuance should be granted is within the discretion of the trial court.” (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603.) A trial court has wide latitude in the matter of calendar control including the granting or denying of continuances. (Park Motors, Inc. v. Cozens (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 12, 18.) 

A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or ex parte application, with supporting declarations. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(b).) The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered. (Ibid.)

Each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits according to 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.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c).) Good cause may be present where a party has not been unable “to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts” or there has been a “significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c)(6)-(7).)

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332 sets forth a list of non-exhaustive factors to be analyzed when determining whether good cause for a trial continuance is present. A court considers factors such as: (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, Rule 3.1332(d).)

Issue No.1: Good Cause for Continuing Trial

          Defendants present the declaration of their counsel, Paul C. Kwong (“Kwong”), in support of the Motion. The parties agree that a continuance of the trial in this matter is necessary. (Kwong Decl., ¶ 3 and Exhibit A at ¶ 1.) The parties have a private mediation scheduled for March 5, 2024. (Id., Exhibit A at ¶ 2) The parties need additional time to complete additional medical evaluations and obtain reports from various experts to be prepared for the mediation. (Id.) The parties have been diligent in conducting discovery, but additional time is needed to perform discovery and obtain the opinions of various expert witnesses. (Id., Exhibit A at 3:5-7.) There has been one prior trial continuance. (Kwong Decl., ¶ 4.) The parties need to obtain results from Plaintiff’s currently scheduled medical examinations, engage in mediation, and no prejudice will result from the requested continuance. (Id.) Kwong declares that Defendants have not unreasonably delayed discovery or any other steps in this matter and brought the Motion as soon as possible after learning it would be necessary. (Id., ¶ 5.)

          The Court finds that good cause is present for a trial continuance so that the parties can complete discovery and engage in mediation. Exercising its discretion under Park Motors, Inc. v. Cozens, supra, 49 Cal.App.3d 12, 18, the Court finds it appropriate to continue the trial in this matter. Also, given the lack of opposition to the Motion, there is an inference it has merit. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

          The Motion is therefore GRANTED.

III.     CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion. The Court continues non-jury trial in this action from January 26, 2024, to Friday, August 2, 2024 at 8:30 AM in this department. All trial-related dates, including discovery cutoff dates, are based on the continued trial date.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

      Dated this 20th day of November 2023