Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV04205, Date: 2025-02-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23SMCV04205 Hearing Date: February 11, 2025 Dept: M
CASE NO.: 23SMCV04205
MOTION: Motion
to Continue Trial
HEARING DATE: 2/11/2025
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 Aravind Kanalaksha Pai
moves to continue the trial date and all trial-related dates. The motion is
unopposed, as the parties have stipulated to a continuance.
Defendant argues that good cause is
shown for a continuance to November 5, 2025. Defendant notes that there have
been delays in obtaining Plaintiff’s financial records and documentation to
support his loss of earnings claim. Plaintiff’s deposition has not gone
forward, as Defendant wishes to review all relevant records first. Defendant also
notes there has been no prior continuance of trial in this matter. Defendant
does not explain these delays in any detail and does not explain what
reasonable efforts have been made to secure such discovery. (Crawl Decl., ¶
4.) As such, Defendant does not show an
excuse for his inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other
material evidence. Moreover, Defendant has adequate time to prepare the case
for trial with the current May 5, 2025, trial date.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.