Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV34903, Date: 2025-03-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV34903 Hearing Date: March 13, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On September 22, 2021, Plaintiff Charles Merida (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Rui Guo (“Guo”), East Wind Transportation, Inc. (“EWT”), and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On March 22, 2022, EWT filed an answer. On April 7, 2022, Guo filed an answer.
On January 9, 2023, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated request to continue the trial from March 22, 2023 to June 28, 2023, with discovery and related dates to be based on the new trial date.
On May 3, 2023, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated request to continue the trial from June 28, 2023 to November 17, 2023, with discovery and related dates to be based on the new trial date.
On October 3, 2024, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated request to continue the trial from November 17, 2023 to June 3, 2024, with discovery and related dates to be based on the new trial date.
On February 27, 2024, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated request to continue the trial from June 3, 2024 to December 16, 2024, with discovery and related dates to be based on the new trial date.
On November 7, 2024, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated request to continue the trial from December 16, 2024 to April 14, 2025, with discovery and related dates to be based on the new trial date.
On January 24, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue the trial and related dates, finding the application did not establish exigent circumstances.
On January 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to continue the trial and related dates. The motion was set for hearing on March 13, 2025. On February 26, 2025, Guo and EWT (“Defendants”) filed an opposition. On March 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply.
Trial is scheduled for April 14, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to continue the trial to a date after August 11, 2025 and continue all related deadlines.
Defendants ask the Court to deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Motion to continue trial
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 provides:
“(a) Trial dates are firm
“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.
“(b) Motion or application
“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. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.
“(c) Grounds for continuance
“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:
“(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;
“(2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;
“(3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;
“(4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;
“(5) The addition of a new party if:
“(A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or
“(B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case;
“(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.
“(d) Other factors to be considered
“In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These 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.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.)
B. Motion to continue or reopen discovery
Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020, subdivision (b) provides:
“Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (b).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 provides:
“(a) On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(b) In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following:
“(1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery.
“(2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier.
“(3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party.
“(4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.
“(c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to extend or to reopen discovery, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff asks the Court to continue the trial to a date after August 11, 2025 because (1) one of Plaintiff’s witnesses is expected to give birth in late March or early April 2025, making her unavailable to testify in April 2025, (2) Plaintiff’s workers’ compensation case is pending before the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (“WCAB”), (3) Plaintiff is still receiving medical and psychiatric treatment through his WCAB providers, (4) any medical or psychiatric providers with whom Plaintiff obtains further treatment in the workers' compensation system will likely be material witnesses in this action, (5) the WCAB has not declared that Plaintiff’s injuries are “permanent and stationary,” and (6) the WCAB insurance carrier, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, has asserted a lien against any proceeds which Plaintiff may recover in this civil case and the lien is not yet final.
Defendants oppose the motion, arguing Plaintiff’s reasons for a continuance do not amount to good cause.
The Court finds good cause to continue the trial. However, Plaintiff has not shown that the trial should be continued to a date after August 11, 2025. Instead, the Court continues the trial to May 14, 2025 or the next available date. Discovery and related dates and deadlines will be based on the new trial date.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff Charles Merida’s motion to continue the trial and related dates. The Court continues the trial to May 14, 2025 or the next available date. The final status conference, discovery, and related dates and deadlines will be based on the new trial date. In all other respects, the Court denies the motion.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.