Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 19SMCV00133, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling. Please call the court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, leave a message with the court clerk at (310) 260-3629 advising her that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing, and finally, serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.

Case Number: 19SMCV00133    Hearing Date: June 14, 2024    Dept: I

This is an application to continue the trial.  Defendant Beverly Hills contends that its lead counsel has an arbitration that will conflict with the July 22, 2024, trial date and further has a vacation that will interfere with expert discovery.  Second chair has an unforeseen family issue that is a conflict.  The original trial date was January 2021—that is over three years ago.  It has been continued a number of times since then, although not at Beverly Hills’s request. 

The court has a concern.  The court is curious as to why it is that lead counsel’s arbitration conflict and vacation conflict were not brought to this court’s attention on June 20, 2023—a year ago—when the instant trial date was set.  If it is because those conflicts did not yet exist, then the court would like an explanation as to why the arbitration hearing had to be set in a way that conflicts with this trial date.  Arbitrations generally have greater flexibility than trials, at least as to an initial setting.  The court needs to better understand why the arbitrator insisted on creating a conflict with lead counsel.  Similarly, the court needs to better understand why lead counsel planned a vacation for a time that would interfere with expert discovery.

If both of those questions can be answered satisfactorily, the court would be likely to grant the application, given that counsel cannot be two places at once.  If not, then the court will discuss the issue with the parties. 

The court understands that the City is not asking for a long continuance.  But the City seems to assume that the court’s trial calendar is wide open.  The court assures the City that the court’s trial calendar is far from that.  Accordingly, a delay or continuance could well be prejudicial to plaintiff given that this case is already five years old.