Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV05427, Date: 2023-12-20 Tentative Ruling

This is an action arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on June 19, 2021. On February 14, 2022, Plaintiffs Jesus Anguiano and Josefina Aguiano (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants City of Arcadia, Arcadia Public Works Services Department, and Does 1 to 30, alleging causes of action for: (1) Negligence and (2) Negligence Per Se.

On March 24, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Proof of Service indicating that Defendant City was served with the summons and complaint by personal service on March 13, 2023.

On November 17, 2023, Defendant City filed and served an unopposed motion to continue the date of trial from January 9, 2024, to June 10, 2024, or another date convenient for the Court’s calendar (the “Motion”). Any opposition to the Motion was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Non-jury trial in this action is currently scheduled for January 9, 2024.

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).)

Defendant presents the declaration of its counsel, Brian Ning (“Ning”), in support of the Motion. Defendant City was first served the Complaint in March 2023, which is over one year after this lawsuit was filed. (Ning Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant City filed its Answer on April 12, 2023, and a jury trial was requested, and the accompanying fees paid. (Id., ¶ 5.) The pleadings have been at issue for a mere seven months. (Id.) There has only been one prior trial continuance. (Id., ¶ 6.) On June 22, 2023, the parties submitted a stipulation to continue the August 14, 2023, trial date to the current date of January 9, 2024. (Id.)

Since April, Defendant City has propounded a first round of written discovery. (Id., ¶ 7.) Defendant City is in the process of reviewing Plaintiffs’ supplemental responses to such discovery and requires additional time to conduct follow-up discovery of Plaintiffs and third parties. (Id.) Defendant City requires more time to conduct discovery as counsel’s office is in the process of gathering responsive documents pursuant to third party subpoenas. (Id., ¶ 8.) The parties are currently participating in ongoing settlement discussions which commenced in early summer of 2023. (Id., ¶ 9.) Both sides agree that a continuance to June 2024 is in their best and mutual interests and have stipulated to a trial continuance. (Id., ¶ 10 and Exhibit 1.)

The Court finds that good cause is present for a trial continuance so that discovery can be completed, and the parties can continue engaging in settlement discussions. 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.)

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion. The Court continues non-jury trial in this action from January 9, 2024, to Monday, July 1, 2024 at 8:30 AM in this department. All trial-related dates, including discovery cutoff dates, are based on the continued trial date.

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.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court