Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV01863, Date: 2024-01-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22SMCV01863 Hearing Date: January 3, 2024 Dept: M
CASE NAME: Khalili v. Senecal,
et al.
CASE NO.: 22SMCV01863
MOTION: Motion
to Continue Trial
HEARING DATE: 1/3/2024
Legal
Standard
Pursuant to California Rules of Court (CRC) Rule 3.1332(a), “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.” Under CRC Rule 3.1332(b), “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.”
Rule 3.1332(c) states that “[a]lthough 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 include 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.”
Defendant Michael Senecal moves to continue
trial on this matter for at least six months (February 5, 2024, to August 5,
2024) to allow for the conclusion of discovery and mediation. Defendant
represents that the parties need to complete necessary discovery including a
follow-up deposition of Plaintiff and the defense medical examination. As such,
the parties need a trial continuance to complete necessary discovery. Further,
the parties have recently agreed to participate in a private mediation
currently scheduled for April 26, 2024. Defendant notes that the parties have
stipulated to continue trial, the final status conference, and all related
trial dates.
There is no good cause for a continuance. The parties agreed to the trial date and were
ordered to complete either mediation or a settlement conference prior to that
date. Now, the parties want to
reschedule the trial date to accommodate their schedules and desire to mediate
at a later date, and if that mediation fails, complete additional discovery. There is no evidence before the Court that this
discovery could not have been completed prior to trial, other than the parties
desire to mediate in April and then complete discovery. As such, there is no good cause for a trial
continuance. The motion is DENIED.