Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22SMCV02460, Date: 2024-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02460    Hearing Date: April 5, 2024    Dept: I

The court just does not understand this request.  None of the reasons Cenlar gives to continue the trial have merit save potentially one: the email issue.  The fact that people are trying to file cross actions or delayed in discovery is little more than a reflection that although trial was set long ago, the parties just did not get the work done in a timely way.  Counsel’s conflicts are counsel’s problem.  The time to have raised the conflicts was when the trial was set, not now.  And if the conflicts arose later, then presumably counsel warned the other judges about the instant trial and they agreed that this trial would take precedence—just as this court would do had it been so warned.  Nor is the court convinced that the delay is all plaintiff’s fault.  However, all that being said, if the cross-action is allowed, it could be that the trial date cannot stand.  The court would need to hear specifically what discovery would be needed and why.  Right now, it is unclear in the court’s mind whether Ostayan’s decision to switch sides (in a manner of speaking) really necessitates any additional work.  But if it does, and if Cenlar truly needs to do more work, that could require a continuance.

The only other issue that might constitute cause is counsel’s email problem.  Counsel says that there was an email problem that hindered counsel between October 2023 and March 2024—when it was finally discovered.  The court needs to know more about that.  It is odd that email would be down for six months and counsel would not know it.  So there must be some other exotic cause for the issue.  But if it is true that there was an email bug that reasonably was not discovered for six months, and if some reasonable showing can be made that as a result of that there was a delay that is now prejudicial, the court will consider the matter.

Thus, if the court were to rule right now, it would deny the motion.  However, the court is prepared to continue the matter to April 16, 2024, at 9:00 am and hear it together with the motion for leave to file a cross-complaint.  Cenlar may, no later than noon on Monday, file a brief not to exceed 5 pages in length setting forth the additional discovery it claims it will need should the motion be granted and why that was not something that could have, and should have, been done anyway.  Any party opposing a continuance may file an opposition to the ex parte and also a response to Cenlar’s supplemental brief by Wednesday, April 10, 2024, at 4:00 pm.  For both filings, the court requests a courtesy copy be delivered to the courtroom.

The court reminds the parties that until and unless the FSC and trial are continued, the court expects full compliance with its FSC and trial rules, which can be found on line.  Failure to abide by those rules will result in sanctions.

A final word.  The court is not trying to be difficult.  The problem is that the court has about 1000 cases on its docket and all want trials.  The court is generally setting 6 per week (and it takes at least 2 weeks to try most cases, all in).  That means the court is already relying on 11/12 settling or resolving short of trial.  If the court starts continuing trials absent truly good cause, it means that another case—where the parties have done what they are supposed to do and are ready for trial—will need to get continued, or it extends the time to trial.  That is not fair to other litigants, the court, or the taxpayer.  If the court were setting 3 or 4 cases per week, the court could, and would, accommodate requests to continue more frequently.  It is just not feasible with the current case load.