Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV02697, Date: 2024-05-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22SMCV02697 Hearing Date: May 21, 2024 Dept: M
CASE NO.: 22SMCV02697
MOTION: Motion to Continue Trial
HEARING
DATE: 5/21/2024
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.”
CRC 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.”
CRC Rule 3.1332(d) sets forth other factors that are relevant in
determining whether to grant a continuance.
Analysis
Defendant Shores Barington LLC
moves to continue trial to allow for the conclusion of discovery. Trial is
currently scheduled for June 10, 2024. Defendant seeks a five-month continuance
to November 2024 or later. Defendant also submits a stipulation from the
parties consenting to a trial continuance.
Defendant requests additional time
to complete Plaintiff’s deposition and expert discovery. Defendant explains
that Plaintiff’s deposition was originally noticed for February 9, 2024, but
Plaintiff’s counsel was unavailable. (See Carpenter Decl.) Following meet and
confer efforts, the deposition was re-scheduled for February 23, 2024. On
February 22, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel notified counsel for Defendant that he
was again unavailable for the deposition given a trial in an unrelated matter. Plaintiff’s
counsel was amenable to a deposition in March 2024. However, Defendant has been
unable to secure Plaintiff’s counsel’s availability for the contemplated
deposition. Defendant contends that it will be prejudiced if they are unable to
complete discovery and prepare for trial without said deposition and
unspecified expert discovery. Defendant also submits that Plaintiff will not
suffer any prejudice by a brief trial continuance.
Defendant does not show good cause
for a trial continuance. Defendant does not demonstrate their diligent efforts
to secure the outstanding essential discovery but, instead, focuses on
Plaintiff’s counsel’s unavailability for Plaintiff's deposition. Defendant, however,
does not show what reasonable discovery efforts have taken place during the
year and a half pendency of this action, why Plaintiff’s deposition could not
have been taken earlier, or why Defendant failed to move to compel Plaintiff’s
deposition despite repeated failures to appear. Defendant has further failed to
show when Plaintiff’s deposition is currently scheduled. Thus, Defendant does
not demonstrate its reasonable efforts to depose Plaintiff in a timely manner. Defendant
also references “expert discovery” but fails to explain what expert discovery
needs to take place, why this discovery could not have been conducted earlier,
or whether any expert discovery is necessary for the fair resolution of the
action. Defendant therefore fails to justify a continuance at all, let alone a
five-month continuance.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.