TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Talmadge Johnson’s Motion to Continue Trial; Including Resetting Discovery Cut Off [sic] Date is DENIED.

Defendant Talmadge Johnson to give notice.

REASONING

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b), provides that “[a] party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations,” and the motion or application must be made “as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”

Rule 3.1332(c) of the California Rules of Court provides the “[c]ircumstances that may indicate good cause” to continue the trial, and rule 3.1332(d) provides “the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination,” which includes: which the Court may consider when evaluating a motion to continue trial, includes:

(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.

Defendant Talmadge Johnson (“Defendant”) moves the Court for an order continuing the trial date in this action, with trial currently set for March 18, 2024, and Defendant asks that this include resetting the discovery cutoff date. Defendant argues that the case is not ready for trial because he needed to substitute trial counsel after defending the action in propria persona, and he contends that he has been unable to obtain any essential documents or answers to interrogatories from Plaintiff Top O’ Topanga Homeowners Association (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff opposes the motion on the basis there is no good cause for such a continuance.

First, the Court notes that a prior request to continue trial was granted on October 2, 2023, less than a month before the trial date, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties based on Defendant’s need to leave town to care for his ill father. According to the timeline provided by Defendant, he then obtained an attorney shortly after the continuance was granted, his attorney propounded discovery to Plaintiff, Plaintiff timely responded with objections that discovery had closed, and no responses have been provided to date. (Mot., Morrison Decl., p. 2.) Plaintiff concedes that the order continuing trial did not extend the discovery cutoff date. (Mot., Morrison Decl., p. 3.)

Put simply, the Court finds there is no good cause to continue trial here. First, trial has already been continued once, and any failure to propound discovery during the pendency of this case was the result of Defendant’s conduct. “Pro. per. litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys” (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543), and “the rules of civil procedure must apply equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorney representation” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985). It follows that Defendant cannot obtain a continuance here simply because he chose not to propound discovery before the discovery cutoff date. Second, obtaining counsel is not grounds for continuing a trial date, particularly when the prior continuance was used to obtain counsel. Defendant seeks a continuance simply due to litigation choices he has made and a purported lack of preparedness for trial due to insufficient information, but this is not a basis to continue trial. 

Accordingly, Defendant Talmadge Johnson’s Motion to Continue Trial; Including Resetting Discovery Cut Off [sic] Date is DENIED.