Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 19STCV39485, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV39485    Hearing Date: March 15, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 15, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Continue Trial

Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Anthony Martinez

Responding Party: Plaintiff Walther Medina

T/R:     DEFENDANT/Cross complainant anthony martinez’s motion is granted IN PART. THE COURT WILL ADDRESS A NEW TRIAL DATE AT HEARING.

DEFENDANT/Cross complainant TO GIVE NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:30 am on the day of the hearing.

            The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

While trial continuances are generally disfavored, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1332(c), circumstances that indicate good cause for a continuance include “[a] party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.” (CRC Rule 3.1332(c)(6).) Factors the Court may consider include, “[t]he proximity of the trial date,” “[w]hether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party,” and “[t]he length of the continuance requested.” (CRC Rule 3.1332(d).) 

            Defendant and Cross-Complainant Anthony Martinez moves for a trial continuance on the grounds (1) that lead counsel will be on parental leave during the July 29, 2024, trial date, and (2) the extension is statutorily compliant under California Code of Civil Procedure § 583.310. Codefendant Montebello Unified School District filed a notice of non-opposition to the trial continuance. Plaintiff Walther Medina expressed willingness to “accommodate any requests…need[ed] based on the circumstances”, but was unwilling to stipulate to a continuance “given the 5 year rule.”

The Court is sympathetic to counsel’s parental leave. However, this is a 2019 case, approaching five years old. Trial has been continued repeatedly, over several years. The motion contains no information about trial readiness, or about efforts to settle. The Court will not countenance further delay in bringing this case to resolution. The Court will grant a brief continuance. However, the parties must advise the Court about the status of this case, efforts to settle and, as may be necessary, preparing another lawyer for moving party to be lead counsel at trial.