Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 19SMCV00671, Date: 2024-11-21 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: 19SMCV00671    Hearing Date: November 21, 2024    Dept: I

The motion to continue the trial is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  This is a breach of contract action filed over five years ago.  ATS Construction seeks to continue the trial.  Trial continuances are disfavored; the party or parties seeking a continuance must make an affirmative showing of good cause.  (Cal. R. Ct. 3.1332 subd. (c).)  The rule lists seven non-exclusive considerations for the court in reviewing such a request.  The rule disfavoring continuances has become sharper recently.  The court currently has over 1100 cases on its docket, and the number grows each month.  The court’s calendar “works” on the theory that there are no continuances and that 93% or so of the cases settle or are disposed of short of trial.  While that is probably not a bad assumption, it provides for no elbow room.  Where the court continues a matter, it means that a case that could have been tried on the now-vacated trial date was set for a later date, and it means that the trial being continued will potentially bump another case that would otherwise be ready for trial and where the parties have done what is required of them.  Currently, the court is setting trials about 19 months from the CMC date, and the line is growing longer each month.  Therefore, absent a really good showing or evidence of some unforeseen and unforeseeable event, the court does not grant continuances.

The claim here is that defendant wants to retake discovery and maybe file a summary judgment motion.  The moving party is a relatively recent addition to the case, having filed its answer in September 2024.  That would normally be enough because a newly added party has rights, but there are confounding factors.  First, defendant was served on March 7, 2023.  The fact that defendant chose to wait a year and a half before answering does not demonstrate diligence.  Rather, it appears to have been a tactical choice and will not justify a trial continuance.  The court also notes that it has already continued the case three times, although that was not highlighted in the papers.  And finally, there is a five year issue, although the court understands that everyone is willing to waive that provision, but the statute is not just for litigants.  It is also a statute designed to ensure that court’s do not have overly-aged cases on the docket.

In short, there has been no showing of diligence.  The request is therefore DENIED.  If the parties or the moving party can explain why it has in fact been diligent, the court is open to reconsidering the matter.

The court also sees a notice of disassociation of counsel.  The court will inquire whether the client consents.  If not, then this probably needs to be done by motion to withdraw rather than by notice.  But it can be done on an ex parte basis if (as it appears) there are ethical concerns.