TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Charles Pankow Builders, Ltd. and Azurelite, Inc.’s Motion to Continue Trial, Final Status Conference, and Discovery Cut-Off is GRANTED.

Trial is continued to TBD at hearing. The Final Status Conference is continued to TBD AND  related discovery deadlines are per the new trial date.

Defendants Charles Pankow Builders, Ltd. and Azurelite, Inc. 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.

Defendants Charles Pankow Builders, Ltd. and Azurelite, Inc. (“Defendants”) move the Court for an order continuing the trial date in this action, which is currently set for January 13, 2025. Defendants state that the parties are still conducting necessary discovery, they have subpoenaed documents, they have not taken Plaintiff Brandon Martinez (“Plaintiff”)’s deposition or the deposition of the Person Most Qualified of Plaintiff’s employer, and they have not yet evaluated Plaintiff in an Independent Medical Examination. Plaintiff opposes the motion on the grounds that Defendants have been stalling this action, and he agreed to a short continuance of two months but will not agree to a five- or six-month continuance.

The Court finds good cause to continue the trial date. In the absence of continuance of the trial date, the parties will be forced to proceed with trial preparation without sufficient discovery, and a continuance is necessary to properly prepare for trial. This will be the first continuance of the trial date, and while Plaintiff contends he will suffer prejudice from a continuance, he merely alleges prejudice based on an inability to recover damages from Defendants, which does not warrant a denial of a continuance when the case is not ready for trial and is under two years old.  

Accordingly, Defendants Charles Pankow Builders, Ltd. and Azurelite, Inc.’s Motion to Continue Trial, Final Status Conference, and Discovery Cut-Off is GRANTED.