Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22SMCV02154, Date: 2024-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02154    Hearing Date: October 14, 2024    Dept: I

The matter is here for a final status conference.  The case was filed on November 1, 2022.  The court set the trial date and gave its FSC order on August 1, 2023—well over a year ago.  In that order, the court told the parties that the FSC was a substantial hearing and that they ought to start meeting and conferring 2 to 3 months beforehand to start discussing how to get all of the required materials filed.  The court further told the parties that they would be sanctioned (as would their counsel) if they failed to do so.  The court also warned that if one party was trying to comply but the other was not, the sanctions could be imposed against only the non-complying party and could be in the nature of preclusion orders, as discussed in the Local Rules. 

The court has received no FSC papers in this matter.  The court is aware that the parties were trying to continue the FSC and trial.  The original request was denied without prejudice to a new request on a showing of diligence.  On Friday, October 10, 2024, the parties provided a new stipulation.  To explain just a bit, the court has over 1100 cases on its docket.  Accordingly, the flexibility it used to have to continue cases upon a reasonable request for the parties’ convenience is now gone.  Other parties wanted this trial date but did not get it because this case had it.  And if the court continues this case for a relatively short period, that means it has to dislodge another case that was going to go to trial on that date and where the parties have acted diligently.  When the court had 800 or so cases on its docket, the court knew it had flexibility because many cases settle.  But now, the court assumes that 93% of cases will resolve short of trial, and that is the only way the calendar (sort of) works.  While that assumption is probably about right, it gives the court no flexibility.  The court will always consider the possibility that notwithstanding diligence by the parties, unforeseen and unforeseeable circumstances require a continuance.  The court denied the prior application to allow such a showing to be made, but the court has seen no showing of diligence by the parties here.  The new stipulation states that the parties have not finished discovery, even though the trial is almost two years after the case was filed.  It states that the parties would like to mediate, but it does not say that the parties complied with the court’s order (on the parties’ agreement) that the mediation would be completed no later than April 30, 2024.  In short, the parties have just not been diligent, so far as the court can see.

Accordingly, the case is plainly NOT READY FOR TRIAL.  The parties have bought themselves a unilateral continuance.  The court therefore VACATES the trial date and will set a trial setting conference for October 21, 2024, at 8:30 am.  The court is also setting an order to show cause re: sanctions against lead counsel and both parties not to exceed $7500 each for the disregard of the court’s final settlement conference order.  If anyone wants to file a response to the OSC, it ought to be done no later than tomorrow at 4:00 pm.

One silver lining.  The court does not believe in sanctions for the sake of sanctions.  If it turns out that the court is otherwise engaged such that the court would not have been able to try the case anyway, or if there is another case that is also set for trial next week and wants to go to trial, the court is likely to re-set this case and view the sanctions in a different light.  While that might be more luck than skill for the parties, there is no point in sanctioning just for the heck of it, at least if the parties have now received the message.  The court should note that currently, the court’s docket is such that unless the case is given priority, it will be set for trial in May 2026.