Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 21STCV31632, Date: 2025-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31632    Hearing Date: May 15, 2025    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Nicholas Muso, et al. v. Sevadham Management, LP, et al. 

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue Trial and All Related Dates. 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial and all related dates. The Court will set a new trial date and corresponding deadlines at the hearing on the motion. 

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order. 

BACKGROUND 

This is an elder abuse and wrongful death action. On August 26, 2021, plaintiff Patricia Muso, individually and as representative of decedent Nicholas Muso (collectively, Plaintiffs), filed this action against defendants Sevadham Management, LP dba Mountain View Centers Claremont Memory Care (Sevadham), Does 1 through 25, plus Nicholas Anthony Muso and Kathryn Muso as nominal defendants, alleging causes of action for dependent adult abuse and neglect, violation of patient rights, negligence, and wrongful death. 

On April 25, 2025, Plaintiffs moved to continue trial and all related dates. The motion is unopposed. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

            “Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.” (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.) A trial court has broad discretion in considering a request for a trial continuance. (Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 13-18.) California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 sets forth factors for the Court to consider in ruling on a motion to continue trial. Whether the parties have stipulated to the postponement is a relevant factor for consideration. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 595.2, but see Lorraine v. McComb (1934) 220 Cal. 753, 756-757 [finding a stipulation to be merely “directory”].) 

(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, subds. (c), (d).) 

DISCUSSION 

            Plaintiffs seek to continue trial and all related deadlines on the grounds that discovery remains outstanding. Plaintiffs contend Sevadham’s numerous failures in complying with discovery obligations in the recent past constitute good cause for continuing the trial. Plaintiffs indicate that they only recently received discovery responses after approximately a year and half and after multiple discovery motions. Plaintiffs contend they need to conduct further discovery regarding critical information in the exclusive custody and control of Sevadham. Plaintiffs contend the record shows they have been diligent in seeking discovery, but that Sevadham’s failures to comply with discovery obligations prejudiced Plaintiffs, and Sevadham should not be able to run down the clock and thereby limit Plaintiffs’ discovery efforts. Plaintiffs indicate they noticed approximately 15 depositions, which will take at least several months to complete. Plaintiffs also indicate that this is the first request for a trial continuance. 

            The Court finds Plaintiffs’ motion persuasive. Plaintiffs did undertake extensive efforts over the past year or so to get Sevadham to comply with its discovery obligations. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c)(6); see Minute Order (2/13/25); Order re Tentative Ruling (10/9/24); Order re Tentative Ruling (8/6/24); Order re Tentative Ruling (6/7/24).) Sevadham should not be allowed to benefit from its failure to comply with Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. (See Civ. Code, § 3517 [“No one can take advantage of their own wrong”].) Plaintiffs also correctly indicate that this is the first trial continuance in this case. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (d)(2).) The Court further construes Sevadham’s lack of opposition as a concession that Plaintiffs’ arguments are meritorious. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion, "it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes" that ground].) 

            Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion. The Court will set a new trial date and corresponding deadlines at the hearing on the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial and all related dates. The Court will set a new trial date and corresponding deadlines at the hearing on the motion. 

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.