Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV00074, Date: 2024-01-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00074    Hearing Date: January 2, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On January 3, 2022, Petitioner AMCO Insurance Company (“Petitioner”) filed an Application for Case Number [Uninsured Motorist Arbitration Proceeding]. The application alleged that Respondent Daniel Tehranivafa (“Respondent”), Petitioner’s insured, reported a vehicle accident with an unknown motorist, filed a claim with Petitioner, and demanded arbitration under the insurance policy. 

On May 25, 2023, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation and continued the trial from July 3, 2023 to January 23, 2024, with all discovery and related dates to be based on the new trial date. 

On December 5, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion to continue the trial and related dates.  Respondent has not filed an opposition. 

Trial is currently scheduled to begin on January 23, 2024.

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Petitioner requests that the Court continue the trial and related dates. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

A.   Request to continue trial 

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. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.” 

          Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c), the Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include “a party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts,” or the unavailability of a party, counsel, or expert due to death, illness or other excusable circumstance. The Court should consider all facts and circumstances relevant to the determination, such as proximity of the trial date, prior continuances, prejudice suffered, whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance, and whether the interests of justice are served. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).) 

B.   Request to continue or reopen discovery 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020 provides: 

“(a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action. 

“(b) 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.) 

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 

The parties have scheduled a mediation to take place on March 19, 2024 and need additional time to complete discovery.  In November 2023, the parties stipulated to continue the trial to June 4, 2024 but the Court rejected the stipulation because Respondent had not yet paid the first appearance fee. 

The Court finds good cause and grants the motion.  The Court continues the trial to June 4, 2024 or the next available date.  The FSC and all related discovery and pre-trial dates will be based on the new trial date. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Petitioner AMCO Insurance Company’s motion to continue the trial and related dates. The Court continues the trial to June 4, 2024 or the next available date.  The Final Status Conference and all related discovery and pre-trial dates will be based on the new trial date. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is to file a proof of service of this ruling within five days.