Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV00947, Date: 2024-06-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00947    Hearing Date: June 18, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Vickers v. Wallen, et al.

CASE NO.:                23SMCV00947

MOTION:                  Motion to Continue Trial

HEARING DATE:   6/18/2024

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) further 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) also sets forth other factors that are relevant in determining whether to grant a continuance.

Analysis

Plaintiff Rose Vickers moves to continue the trial date currently set for July 20, 2024, to a date after January 2025 that is convenient with the Court’s calendar. The motion is unopposed, as the parties have stipulated to a continuance.

Plaintiff argues that there has been a significant, unexpected change which renders this case not ready for trial. Plaintiff explains that she recently retained new counsel after former counsel could not continue to represent Plaintiff due to a conflict. This is the second time this year that Plaintiff has substituted new counsel. First, Plaintiff provides no evidence in support of the motion, and therefore does not establish any facts necessary for her motion. (See Hosharian Decl.) Ignoring this issue, Plaintiff does not explain why she will be prejudiced if the trial is not continued. For instance, Plaintiff does not explain why new counsel needs additional time to prepare for trial. If more time is necessary for counsel to conduct discovery, she fails to explain what necessary discovery is outstanding, or why such discovery could not have reasonably been obtained earlier. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that a continuance is in the interests of justice.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.