Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV00117, Date: 2024-06-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00117    Hearing Date: June 26, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Cottman v. Muse Treatment Center, et al.

CASE NO.:                23SMCV00117

MOTION:                  Motion to Continue Trial and Related Dates

HEARING DATE:   6/26/2024

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

Plaintiff James Cottman moves to continue the current trial date of August 5, 2024, to February 10, 2025, or any date thereafter.  Plaintiff fails to make any showing of the CRC Rule 3.1332 factors, or any other persuasive reason to grant the continuance. Plaintiff argues that a continuance is necessary so that further discovery, expert depositions, and settlement negotiations may be conducted. However, Plaintiff does not show any excused inability to obtain essential discovery. Plaintiff also does not provide any details on the parties’ diligent discovery efforts. (See Calderwood Decl., ¶5.) Thus, there is no basis to grant a continuance for discovery purposes.

Plaintiff also argues that the requested continuance would increase the chances of settlement and would therefore be in the interest of judicial economy. Plaintiff does not explain what settlement efforts the parties have undergone so far, or what settlement efforts are currently planned. Thus, the Court is not persuaded that a continuance would increase the chances of settlement. Furthermore, the Court ordered a settlement conference or mediation to be completed by July 5, 2024.  (See 10/9/23 Minute Order.)  The parties’ failure to obey the Court’s order would justify sanctions, but not a trial continuance. 

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.