Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV02807, Date: 2024-03-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22SMCV02807 Hearing Date: March 14, 2024 Dept: M
CASE NAME:           Lim, v. Amazon
Content Services LLC, et al.
CASE NO.:                22SMCV02807
MOTION:                  Motion
to Continue Trial
HEARING DATE:   3/14/2024
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.”
Under CRC Rule 3.1332(c), “[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.
Defendant Adam Neuwirth seeks to
continue the current June 10, 2024, trial on this matter to allow for new
counsel to get up to speed and for the conclusion of discovery. Defendant
requests a continuance to at least October 10, 2024. 
Defendant argues that the
procedural posture and the current date prevents the conclusion of discovery.
Defendant filed a Substitution of Attorney approximately five months ago on
November 20, 2023, and claims to need more time to conduct discovery. Defendant
notes that April 22, 2024, is the last day for exchange of expert witnesses
given the current trial date. Defendant argues that his defense will be
severely handicapped and prejudiced, since it is uncertain which particular
experts may need to be retained for the issues in this case. Defendant noticed
Plaintiff’s orthopedic medical examination for April 8, 2024, the doctor’s
first available date. Defendant claims he will not be able to properly evaluate
the retained expert’s opinions by the expert witness exchange date given the
current IME date. Defendant also wants to attempt to meaningfully meditate this
case prior to trial, which would require the above discovery to be completed. Defendant
also notes that a new defendant recently answered on January 22, 2024. 
The Court does not find good cause
to continue the trial.  Counsel
substituted into the case over five months ago, and was well aware of the trial
date and various deadlines in the matter. 
Despite this knowledge, counsel did not arrange for an IME until April
8, 2023, thus causing the above-described issues with expert witnesses.  Trial dates are firm, and in this matter,
counsel’s self-created scheduling issues do not establish good cause for a
continuance.