Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 24NWCV01915, Date: 2025-05-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NWCV01915    Hearing Date: May 27, 2025    Dept: F

RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. v. WESTRUX INTERNATIONAL, INC.

CASE NO.: 24NWCV01915

HEARING: May 27, 2025 @ 10:30 a.m.

#22

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant Westrux International, Inc.’s Motion to Continue Trial is DENIED without prejudice. 

Plaintiff to give notice.

Background

This is a breach of contract action. On June 20, 2024, Plaintiff Resource Environmental, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Westrux International, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 50. The Complaint alleges the parties entered into an agreement by which Plaintiff would purchase a 2021 Navistar International truck (“Truck”) from Defendant. The Complaint alleges the Truck manifested defects, requiring Plaintiff to pay costs of repairs. Defendant allegedly failed to refund the purchase price of the Truck or pay costs of repairs. The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: 1) Breach of Written Contract, 2) Breach of Implied Warranty, 3) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and 4) Negligent Misrepresentation.

Trial is currently set for March 27, 2026.

Defendant now moves to continue trial to April 29, 2026, or to a date thereafter convenient to the Court.

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 trial continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c).)

Discussion

On April 3, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“MJOP”) which is currently set for hearing on March 4, 2026. Defendant asserts that the MJOP is presently scheduled after the motion cut-off date based on the current trial date of March 27, 2025. Defendant asserts that it will be prejudiced if its MJOP cannot be heard prior to trial. Further, Defendant asserts that the current MJOP hearing date is so close to the trial such that Defendant will incur unnecessary costs preparing for trial. Thus, good cause exists to continue trial.

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts Defendant’s MJOP is procedurally improper because Defendant failed to meet and confer according to Code of Civil Procedure section 439. Further, Plaintiff offers to strike the prayer for punitive damages from the Complaint, rendering the MJOP moot. If the MJOP is rendered moot, a trial continuance is no longer needed. Lastly, Plaintiff asserts it would be unfairly prejudiced by the trial continuance.

In reply, Defendant represents that it is amenable to a stipulation to strike punitive damages. Upon a stipulation, Defendant will withdraw its MJOP and its request to continue trial.

Given the agreement between the parties that Defendant will withdraw its MJOP upon Plaintiff striking the prayer for punitive damages, the motion to continue trial is DENIED without prejudice.