Hon. Lee S. Arian 

Department 27 

Tentative Ruling 

¿¿¿ 

Hearing Date: 3/27/2024 at 1:30 p.m. 

Case No./Name: 22STCV13468 TITO RODRIGUEZ, et al. vs ALVARO LOPEZ BUENDIA, et al. 

Motion: Motion to Continue Trial 

Moving Party: Defendants 

Responding Party: Plaintiffs 

Notice: Sufficient 

¿¿ 

Ruling: MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL IS GRANTED. 

 

Legal Standard 

¿¿¿¿ 

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.¿ (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)¿ The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.¿ (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted: (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance 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; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial.¿ (See generally, CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)¿ Additional factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.¿ (CRC Rule 3.1332(c), (d).) 

 

Factual Background and Analysis 

On April 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the present auto accident case, alleging Defendant ALVARO LOPEZ BUENDIA crashed into his car while under the employment of Defendant Glass Inc. Tower. The current trial date is set for June 17, 2024. Defendants allege that they recently discovered a conflict of interest between the two Defendants and that new counsel needs to be retained to represent one of the Defendants. Consequently, they move the Court to continue the trial to allow the new counsel to become familiar with the case. Plaintiff opposes, questioning the legitimacy of Defendant’s conflict of interest claim and alleges prejudice due to Plaintiff’s health conditions. 

 

Defendant’s basis for the present motion is to provide new counsel sufficient time to prepare for trial. Defendant states that as of February 23, 2024, new counsel has already been appointed to address the conflict of interest between the two Defendants. (Motion at p. 2.) The motion does not explain why four months is insufficient for the new counsel to prepare for trial concerning an auto accident collision and why new counsel requires 10 months to become acquainted with the case to prepare for trial. In the court’s experience, four months is typically adequate amount of time to become sufficiently familiar with the case file. Considering the time and resources both parties have already devoted to trial preparation and Plaintiff’s worsening health condition, the Court will grant an extension of only 30 days to the current trial date. 

 

The new trial date is set for July __, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. The Final Status Conference is continued to July __, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. All other case-related deadlines will not follow the new trial date.