Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV01569, Date: 2024-06-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23SMCV01569 Hearing Date: June 20, 2024 Dept: M
CASE NAME: Francisco, et
al., v. Arancio
CASE NO.: 23SMCV01569
MOTION: Motion
to Continue Trial
HEARING DATE: 6/20/2024
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
Defendant Joseph Arnacio moves for
a continuance of trial and related dates from August 5, 2024, to February 5,
2025, to allow both parties to complete discovery and sufficient time for settlement
negotiations. Plaintiff does not oppose the request.
Defendant contends that the parties
need additional time to prepare for trial because they have not obtained
essential discovery despite their diligent efforts. Defendant argues that the
parties have been unable proceed on essential discovery, such as taking
Plaintiffs’ deposition, as Defendant only recently received verified responses
from Plaintiffs after months of delay. (Rivera Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff initiated
this personal injury action on April 11, 2023. Defendant answered on July 7,
2023. On September 26, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiffs with his first set of
discovery, including Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for
Admissions, and Request Production of Documents (Set One). (Rivera Decl., ¶3.) Plaintiffs
initially served unverified responses to written discovery on December 15,
2023. (Id., see Garber & Assocs. v. Eskandarian (2007) 150
Cal.App.4th 813, 817 n.4 [unverified responses constitute no response at all].)
Plaintiffs later served their verifications on April 23, 2024. (Rivera Decl.,
¶4.)
Defendant also requests a
continuance to allow for further settlement discussions. On April 24, 2024,
Defendant made Plaintiffs an offer to settle this matter, which apparently was
not accepted. (Rivera Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendant wants more time for informal
settlement efforts, and for mediation in case the parties cannot reach informal
settlement.
The parties claim prejudice if the
motion is not granted. They reason that they will be substantially prejudiced
if they are forced to prepare for trial without the opportunity to take
depositions and obtain deposition testimony from treating providers.
The Court
does not find good cause for a trial continuance, especially a 6-month trial
continuance. The Court recognizes that this would be the first continuance in
this matter. However, the parties have not shown why discovery could not be completed before
the current discovery cut-offs. The above timeline demonstrates that Defendant did
not diligently seek discovery from Plaintiffs. To the extent that Plaintiffs
were not forthcoming with their verifications. Defendant had the option to
compel the verifications at any time. Instead, Defendant allowed for
extensions. In any event, despite completing this discovery, Defendant apparently
has not noticed any of Plaintiffs’ deposition(s). Moreover, even if the parties
have conducted no discovery since the filing of this motion, the Court
believes that the parties still could complete the cited depositions within the
months they have before trial. Therefore, the Court is not inclined to
grant a continuance at this juncture.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.