Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV20584, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV20584 Hearing Date: February 20, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On August 28, 2023, Plaintiff Elizabeth Fletcher filed this action against Defendants Paul Ubaldo Rebosa Luque (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On October 2, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.
On December 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to continue the trial and related dates. The motion was set for hearing on January 9, 2025. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. The Court continued the hearing to February 20, 2025.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to continue the trial and related dates.
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 argues that Defendant has not filed an answer or appeared in this action. In fact, the Court’s file shows that Defendant filed an answer on October 2, 2023. However, the answer does not include a proof of service.
If Plaintiff believes that Defendant has not answered the complaint, it is unclear why Plaintiff has not attempted to take Defendant’s default. It is also unclear why Plaintiff has not reviewed the Court’s docket, which shows that Defendant filed an answer over one year ago.
Nonetheless, based on Plaintiff’s professed belief Defendant has not filed an answer, and the answer’s failure to include a proof of service, the Court finds good cause and grants Plaintiff’s motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Elizabeth Fletcher’s motion to continue the trial and related dates. The Court continues the trial to September 19, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Court continues the Final Status Conference to September 5, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Discovery and related dates and deadlines will be based on the new trial date.
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.