Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 23SMCV02039, Date: 2025-05-28 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: 23SMCV02039    Hearing Date: May 28, 2025    Dept: I

This is a motion by defendant to continue the trial in this fraud and construction defect case.  Defense counsel states that the retention is very recent and that counsel is not yet familiar with the case and that discovery is not complete.  Plaintiff opposes.

The court notes that counsel substituted in on April 22, 2025, but that is not when defendant was aware of the issue.  Prior counsel brought the motion to withdraw on November 14, 2024.  There is no explanation was to why it is that it took five months between the time defendant saw the writing on the wall and the time defendant retained new counsel.  The court also notes that the FSC order was given on March 12, 2024.  The court warned the parties at that time that there would be no continuances because of the court’s congested trial calendar.  While current counsel did not hear that warning, presumably the client knew.

There has been no showing of diligence here.  And for that reason, the court is inclined to DENY the motion.  But there is a caveat.  The court is scheduled to begin a long trial on June 2, 2025, and it will not be over, or even close to over, by June 23, 2025.  If it turns out that the trial actually goes forward, then the court will be unavailable to hear this case on its current trial date of June 23, 2025.  If that comes to pass, the court will be open to revisiting the issue.  A continuance will then be necessary, and the court can at that time discuss with the parties whether the discovery cut off dates ought to be extended or not.  In the meantime, the parties might want to meet and confer on that topic.  The parties might want to check next week or the week after to see if the case is going forward.