Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 23STLC05134, Date: 2024-10-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC05134, Date: 2024-10-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC05134 Hearing Date: October 15, 2024 Dept: 26

Allstate Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Holloway, et al.

CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

(CRC RULE 3.1332)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Jovonny Holloway’s Motion to Continue the Trial Date is GRANTED. TRIAL IS CONTINUED TO JUNE 11, 2025 AT 8:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. DISCOVERY AND MOTION CUTOFF DATES TO FOLLOW THE NEW TRIAL DATE.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for insurance subrogation against Defendant Jovonny Holloway (“Defendant”) on August 15, 2023. No proof of service of the Summons and Complaint is on file with the Court. Defendant recently filed an answer to the Complaint on September 4, 2024. Two days later, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Continue Trial. No opposition to the instant Motion 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).) Additionally, 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 February 11, 2025, because they just filed an answer and require additional time to conduct and complete discovery. (Motion, Nestler Decl., ¶¶3-6.) Specifically, service was only recently attempted on Defendant on August 7, 2024 and Defendant just answered the Complaint on September 4, 2024. (Id. at ¶¶3-4.) There has been no prior continuance of the trial date, nor has Plaintiff filed an opposition to the request for a 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.