Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV02907, Date: 2024-09-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02907    Hearing Date: September 10, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Alimo LLC, v. Lax, et al.

CASE NO.:                22SMCV02907

MOTION:                  Motion to Continue Trial and Related Dates

HEARING DATE:   9/10/2024

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” and sets forth a variety of factors.  CRC Rule 3.1332(d) sets forth other factors that are relevant in determining whether to grant a continuance.

Analysis

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Lyna N. Lax moves to continue the current trial date of October 28, 2024, to sometime in 2025. The parties attended a mediation on February 19, 2024, and believe that further mediation could potentially settle the case. (Senet Decl., ¶ 1.) Defendant explains that the parties have conducted written discovery only and have not started depositions. (¶2.) The parties wish to exhaust settlement efforts without further expense of trial preparation and expert depositions. (¶ 3.) Defendant’s counsel also has trials in other cases currently scheduled in October and December 2024, and therefore requests a continuance to a future date in 2025. (¶4.) Further, all parties have stipulated to the continuance. (¶ 5.)

While there are some factors favoring continuance, Defendant does not show good cause requiring a continuance of trial. The basis for the proposed continuance is to allow for additional settlement efforts, followed by the completion of discovery. Defendant does not provide any overview of the parties’ diligent discovery efforts. Defendant does not explain why the parties were unable to complete discovery over the past year, or at the least, since the February 2024 mediation failed to settle the case. Moreover, while further mediation might result in settlement, the Court believes that firm trial dates provide the proper incentive for parties to settle the action. The interests of justice are best served by keeping the trial date firm.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.