Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV41038, Date: 2025-02-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV41038 Hearing Date: February 21, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Prior proceedings
On December 30, 2022, Plaintiffs David Ortiz and Yuko Ortiz (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort, general negligence, intentional tort, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
On June 14, 2024, the Court advanced and vacated the trial scheduled for June 28, 2024 because Plaintiffs had not filed a proof of service of the summons and complaint on Defendant.
On August 21, 2024, Defendant filed an answer.
On September 5, 2024, the Court scheduled the trial for September 8, 2025.
On December 12, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion was set for hearing on May 27, 2025.
Trial is currently scheduled for September 8, 2025.
B. This motion
On May 3, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion to continue the trial. The motion was set for hearing on January 6, 2025. On December 19, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition. On January 6, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a late reply. (The Court exercises its discretion to consider the late reply.) The Court continued the hearing to February 21, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiffs asks the Court to continue the trial.
Defendant asks 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
When Plaintiffs filed their motion in May 2024, the trial was scheduled to begin on June 28, 2024. After Plaintiffs filed their motion, the Court vacated the June 28, 2024 trial date and later rescheduled the trial for September 8, 2025. Plaintiffs have not, however, taken their motion off calendar or acknowledged the new trial date.
Moreover, Plaintiffs have not specified, either in their motion or their reply papers, the length of the trial continuance they are requesting. Plaintiffs are asking the Court to continue the trial to give them time to retain new counsel and prepare for trial. They do not explain why they cannot accomplish these tasks by September 8, 2025.
The Court denies the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES the motion to continue trial filed by Plaintiffs David Ortiz and Yuko Ortiz.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.