Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00955, Date: 2024-10-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00955    Hearing Date: October 1, 2024    Dept: C

F.B. vs. General Council of the Assemblies of God, et al., Case No. 22NWCV00955

This is a child sexual assault case by a clergyman. Defendant Southern California District Council of the Assemblies of God, Inc. moves ex parte to continue the motion for summary judgment or alternatively, advance it to December 13, 2024. It is currently set for October 23, 2024.

A party may seek ex parte relief upon an affirmative factual showing "irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1202(c).)

In addition, 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) unavailability of trial counsel or witnesses due to “death, illness, or other excusable circumstances”; (2) the addition of a new party depriving the new party (or other parties) from conducting discovery and preparing for trial; (3) “excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts”; or (4) “[a] significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case” preventing it from being ready for trial.

Other relevant considerations 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.” (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 (c).)

The Court does not have availability on December 13, 2024.  The parties are not foreclosed from seeking a trial continuance in Dept. F.  Defendant asserts that further discovery is needed, and Plaintiff’s deposition is set for December 4, 2024. Moving party to give notice.