Legal Standard¿ 

¿ 

Per California Rules of Court (CRC), rule 3.1332, subdivision (c): the court may grant a continuance for “good cause,” which includes: (1) unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) unavailability of a party due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) unavailability of trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) substitution of trial counsel required in the interests of justice; (5) addition of a new party or other parties in regard to a new party’s involvement hasn’t had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; (6) party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which indicates the case is not ready for trial. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)¿ 

¿ 

Other relevant factors to be considered may include: “(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” (CRC Rule 3.1332(d).)¿ 

¿ 

“A trial court has great discretion in the disposition of an application for a continuance. Absent a clear abuse of discretion, the court’s determination will not be disturbed.” (Estate of Smith v. Atkinson (1973) 9 Cal.3d 74, 81.) “Such discretion is abused, however, where the lack of a continuance results in the denial of a fair hearing.” (Rankin v. Curtis (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 939, 947.)¿ 

¿ 

Discussion¿ 

There is good cause to continue the trial. This case is relatively new. Defendant filed its answer on September 19, 2023 and the trial is set for June 12, 2024. The parties have had approximately 8 months to conduct discovery. Defendant alleges that the discovery process has been marked by challenges, notably Plaintiff's failure to respond to discovery requests (Schick Decl. ¶ 9) and delays due to Plaintiff's search for alternative counsel. (Schick Decl. ¶ 8). 

Furthermore, the motion was filed on February 2, 2024, four months ahead of the trial date. This is only the parties’ second request and a 6-month continuance is reasonable. Moreover, no parties will be prejudiced as Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition. 

¿ 

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to continue trial and all related trial dates is GRANTED. The new Trial Date is set for December ___, 2024 at 8:30 a.m., and the new Final Status Conference is set for December ____, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. 

¿ 

¿¿¿ 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:¿¿¿¿ 

¿ 

¿¿¿