Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 19STCV31240, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV31240    Hearing Date: February 10, 2023    Dept: R

The court is unclear about the motion.  The trial is currently set for March 6, 2023—less than a month away.  The parties have apparently stipulated to continue the trial until June.  Plaintiff contends that there is a conflict because plaintiff is in school and a practicum and thus it will be hard to attend trial.

Trial was set last July.  Did plaintiff not know about this problem at that time?  If plaintiff did know, then why did plaintiff not raise the issue sooner.

The court also notes that the case is 3.5 years old already.  The case needs to be resolved.  While it is true that the parties have said that they will try to resolve by settlement the case if there is a continuance, that statement rings hollow.  They have had plenty of time to settle the case but they have not done so.  The promise of settlement under these circumstances is often nothing more than a siren song designed to have the court hope that a continuance will remove the case from the docket.  The court is not saying that such is the case here, but the court sees nothing in the papers to suggest the contrary.  Thus, the notion that the parties will discuss settlement if there is a continuance granted is no justification.  Of course, if the court is wrong about that and the parties are truly on the verge of settling, that would be different.  The court also notes that the motion does not really comply fully with the Rules of Court concerning trial continuances (which are disfavored).  Although the rule is mentioned, the factors are not really discussed, or at least not with sufficient power to cause the court to be likely to grant the request.

Normally, the court would deny the request for those reasons.  However, as it turns out, the court has trials stacked up on the runway and the odds that this court will be available for trial on March 6, 2023 is slight.  Denying the motion under those circumstances might have the salutary effect of encouraging the parties to settle quickly and of sending a message generally that continuances are hard to get.  But it would also be unfair to the parties.  The court cannot deny a motion to continue when the court has no good faith belief that it will be ready on the trial date.  Therefore, and only for that reason, the court will GRANT the application and continue the trial.  The current FSC and trial dates are VACATED.  March 6, 2023, will, instead, be a trial setting conference.  The parties are strongly urged not to request another continuance absent extraordinary cause.  The parties are also reminded to review the court’s final status conference and trial rules that can be found on line (except for the Jury of Eight stipulation, which the parties may ignore if they wish).  The court expects full compliance therewith.