Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: SC125609, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC125609    Hearing Date: February 26, 2024    Dept: I

The court is sympathetic to the request, but the case has been pending for eight years.  There is no excuse for not being done and ready, although the court is well aware that this case has had more than its share of glitches.

There are two problems with the request.  First, the parties might not appreciate that they are not the only case on the court’s docket.  The court has between four and six trials EVERY SINGLE WEEK between now and the end of the year.  The court has no intention of bumping one of those trials for this one.  That means that the court will have to move this trial to one of the slots where it has only four matters on the trial calendar (making this one number five), but the court will state that it will have the lowest priority, meaning that if any other case is ready to go, it is this case that will either trail or be continued.  The court would need to know that the 5 year statute will not be a problem under those circumstances.  The court is not going to put this as trial number 6.  Second, the court is virtually sure that Ra will not stipulate to anything.  Most likely he will need to be dismissed.  The court also needs to have a short leash discovery cut off.  Even if the trial is set out a bit, the discovery cut off will come sooner.  The court is not going to continue to allow this case to plod forward.  In any event, the time to file in limine motions has come and gone.  Those that have been filed have been filed.  The door, though, has now closed.

At present, the court’s thinking is that if the court continues the matter the likely new trial date will be sometime in the summer, but subject to the foregoing problems.  The court will not entertain a further request for a continuance for any reason whatsoever other than a severe medical issue involving lead counsel or a key witness.  If there is any objection by anyone, the court is inclined to DENY the request.  Alternatively, the court is considering whether this case is more properly long cause.  The court recognizes that it had earlier said it would keep the case, but that was before this ex parte.