Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 23SMCV00230, Date: 2024-06-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00230    Hearing Date: June 20, 2024    Dept: I

The motion to continue the trial is, very reluctantly, granted.  This is a case concerning an auto accident.  Plaintiff Saadian filed the case against various defendants, one of whom is Panuco.  The following year, Panuco filed a separate case involving the same accident.  The matters were combined and a trial date was set.  Currently, the trial is November 4, 2024.  Two defendants—Ponce and Aguilar—move to continue the trial.  Panuco joins the motion and filed a reply.

Trial continuances are disfavored, and this court does not grant them lightly.  The court has about 1050 cases on its docket.  The court simply does not have the flexibility to grant continuances even on joint request.  There are typically few if any dates on the court’s near-term calendar to which a trial can be moved without bumping another case where the litigants have been diligent in preparing.  The court can move the case to the back of the trial line, but currently that is over 18 months away and therefore not a good option.

Here, though, there is no way to separate the cases.  They all arise out of a single incident; having two trials leads to the danger of inconsistent verdicts or judgments as well as great inefficiency for the judicial system and the litigants.  That is especially so here where Panuco is a defendant in the low number case but a plaintiff in the high number case.  The court does not see how the cases can realistically be tried separately.  While they are not yet consolidated for trial, that is about to change.

The problem is that Panuco was only filed on January 12, 2024.  (Saadian was filed about a year earlier.)  The court is concerned that there is not enough time to get that case ready for trial by the current trial date in the Saadian matter of November 4, 2024.  The court agrees that much of the discovery is cross-admissible and therefore need not be re-done.  But that does not answer the question fully.  Panuco was deposed, but as a defendant.  His injuries were not explored in the same way in that case as would be needed in this one, and there could also be additional experts or medical discovery needed. 

The motion is therefore GRANTED.  The court will CONSOLIDATE THE CASES FOR ALL PURPOSES INCLUDING TRIAL.  The current FSC and trial dates will be VACATED.  Finally, the court will discuss with the parties the new trial date as early in 2025 as the court can make it.  No further continuances will be given absent truly extraordinary circumstances.