Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 24NWCV00012, Date: 2025-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 24NWCV00012, Date: 2025-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NWCV00012 Hearing Date: April 10, 2025 Dept: F

ARAUJO v. BUENO

CASE NO.: 24NWCV00012

HEARING: 04/10/2025 @ 10:30 AM

#23

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant Jesus Arce Bueno’s motion to continue trial and related deadlines is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Defendant Jesus Arce Bueno (Defendant) moves for an order continuing the trial date and all related dates of this matter.

Background

This action arises out of a motor vehicle incident on March 10 2022, occurring at the intersection of Garfield Ave. and N. Somerset Ranch Rd., City of South Gate. On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff Dorian Araujo (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant alleging two causes of action: (1) motor vehicle and (2) negligence.

Trial is currently scheduled to begin on June 11, 2025, and a final status conference is scheduled for May 28, 2025.

Legal Standard

“Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include… (6) A party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) 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).)

The Court, in making its determination to continue the trial should consider the following factors: (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 unavailability 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).)

Discussion

Defendant moves for an order continuing the trial date to a date after six months and setting all discovery and related deadlines based on the new trial date. Defendant moves pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)(6) on the grounds that despite diligent efforts to obtain Plaintiff’s medical and billing records, Defendant has been unable to obtain the records.

Specifically, Defendant states that after receiving Plaintiff’s discovery responses on April 8, 2024, Defendant’s counsel placed an order with its vendor to subpoena Plaintiff’s medical and billing records. However, Defendant did not receive all the records and had to re-subpoena the records on March 4, 2025. Defendant additionally argues he needs to conduct an Independent Medical Examination and expert discovery.

Here, the Court finds that there is good cause for a trial continuance. Defendant has demonstrated diligent efforts to obtain discovery and delays in receiving responses. The Court additionally notes that there have been no prior trial continuances in this matter. Defendant requested Plaintiff stipulate to a trial continuance but has not received any response. (Huizar Decl., ¶ 4.) No opposition has been filed.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to continue trial and all related deadlines is GRANTED.

The Court finds that a trial continuance of six months is reasonable. All pre-trial deadlines will correspond with the new trial date. The Court will confer with the parties at the hearing to select new final status conference and trial dates.