Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 22STLC02542, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC02542, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC02542 Hearing Date: August 31, 2023 Dept: 26

19350 Sherman Way HOA v. Coleman, et al.

CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

(CRC RULE 3.1332)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Yulia Coleman’s Motion to Continue the Trial Date is GRANTED. TRIAL IS CONTINUED TO JUNE 6, 2023 AT 8:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. THE DISCOVERY AND MOTION CUTOFF DATES ARE TO FOLLOW THE NEW TRIAL DATE.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff 19350 Sherman Way Homeowners Association (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendant Yulio Coleman (“Defendant”) on April 14, 2022. However, Defendant was only served with the Summons and Complaint on June 4, 2023. Defendant filed an answer on June 30, 2023 and the instant Motion to Continue Trial on July 17, 2023. Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 18, 2023.

Discussion

“Although 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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, subd. (c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted: (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance of trial due to any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial. (See generally, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, subd. (d)(1)-(11).) Additional factors for the Court to consider include a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, subds. (c), (d).)

Defendant argues that good cause exists for a continuance of the trial date, which is currently set for October 12, 2023, because there is insufficient time to file a conduct discovery and prepare a defense. (Motion, Quadros Decl., ¶5.) Defendant was only served on June 6, 2023 and filed an answer to the Complaint on June 30, 2023. This leaves less than three months until the discovery cutoff date of September 12, 2023. (Code Civ. Proc., §2024.020.) These circumstances are reasonable grounds to continue the trial date, especially given there has been no prior trial continuance. Plaintiff’s opposition contends that Defendant is seeking to delay trial without good cause but fails to acknowledge that Defendant was not served for more than a year in this action. Discovery was apparently served on Defendant in mid-July but the Court cannot rely on Plaintiff’s unsupported contentions that there will be no need for extensions of the time to respond or that Defendant is in possession of almost all needed documents. (See Opp., pp. 3:27-4:2.) Denying a trial continuance, on the other hand, would cause Defendant significant prejudice. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the factors of Rule 3.1332 weigh in favor of the requested continuance of the trial date. These factors also warrant a reopening of discovery to track with the new trial date, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050.

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.