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.

 

Analysis

 

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.