Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV31000, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV31000    Hearing Date: September 30, 2022    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

Berne H. Evans, et al., 

 

 

 

Plaintiffs,

 

Case No.:

 

 

20STCV31000

 

vs.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

 

David Sullivan,

 

 

 

Defendant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date: September 30, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Continue Trial

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Berne H. Evans and Evans Management, Inc.

Responding Party: None

           

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S motion TO CONTINUE TRIAL is DENIED.

 

PLAINTIFF TO 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 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

            The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been received.

 

Trial continuances are generally disfavored. Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1332(c), good cause for a continuance may 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).) 

 

            The Court previously continued the trial in this case, after the parties reported an unanticipated change in the status of settlement discussions and said they were not prepared for trial. Trial now is set for October 3, 2022, just a few days away.  Plaintiff and Defendant report they have business-related conflicts that cannot be moved. But the Court provided ample notice of the new trial date, to allow the parties to adjust their schedules. The parties have told the Court they are ready for trial; they also say they are again attempting settlement.

 

This case is now more than two years old; a further continuance is not warranted. The Court cannot continue the trial to accommodate the parties’ respective business events. This case must be settled or tried.

            Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.