Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 22STLC03837, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC03837, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC03837 Hearing Date: November 30, 2023 Dept: 26

Mentado, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

(CRC RULE 3.1332)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Jose Gallardo’s Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED. TRIAL DATE IS CONTINUED TO JUNE 4, 2024 AT 8:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. ALL DISCOVERY AND MOTION DATES TO FOLLOW THE NEW TRIAL DATE.

ANALYSIS:

On June 7, 2022, Plaintiffs Eva Mentado (“Plaintiff Mentado”) and Jose Gallardo (“Plaintiff Gallardo”) filed this motor vehicle action against Defendants City of Los Angeles, Access Services (“Defendant Access”), and Ahmedor Ali (“Defendant Ali”). Defendants Access and Ali filed an answer and a cross-complaint on October 14, 2022.

On August 31, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff Gallardo’s Motion to Compel Deposition and ordered Defendant Ali to appear for deposition. (Minute Order 08/31/23.) On October 3, 2023, Plaintiffs added San Gabriel Transit, Inc. as a defendant in this action, as Defendant Ali’s employer.

Plaintiff Gallardo filed the instant Motion to Continue Trial Date on October 18, 2023. The Motion initially was set for hearing on November 9, 2023 but was continued to November 28, 2023, and than again to November 30, 2023, with notice waived. (Minute Orders, 11/09/23 and 11/28/23.) No opposition has been filed to date.

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).)

Plaintiff Gallardo argues that good cause exists for a continuance of the trial date, which is currently set for December 5, 2023, because a new defendant—San Gabriel Transit, Inc.—was added to the action on October 3, 2023 and additional discovery is required. (Motion, Takenouchi Decl., ¶3.) Defendants have stipulated to the trial continuance. (Id. at Exh. A.) These circumstances are reasonable grounds to continue the trial date. Also, there have been no prior trial continuances and there is no prejudice to the other parties. Indeed, they have stipulated to the continuance. 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.

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.