Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: BC689552, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC689552    Hearing Date: September 29, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 29, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Continue Trial

Moving Party: Defendant Protect-US

Responding Party: Plaintiff Gabriel Mauries

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

DEFENDANT 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, 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 Protect-US moves to continue trial to allow Defendant’s motion for summary judgment to be heard 30 days before trial. Trial is currently set for December 19, 2022. Defendant reserved its motion for summary judgment for January 20, 2023, asserting there were no earlier dates in the Court’s reservation system.

In opposition, Plaintiff represents that Defendant previously reserved an MSJ date for November 16, 2022 (more than 30 days before trial) and intentionally made a second reservation to seek a trial continuance. Plaintiff also emphasizes that trial has been continued four times and Defendant has been involved in this action for two years. Defendant states that it made the later MSJ reservation because Plaintiff stopped participating in settlement negotiations.

The Court declines to continue trial. This case is almost five years old and trial has been continued several times. The impasse in settlement negotiations does not justify yet another continuance, nor does it excuse Defendant’s failure to timely file a motion for summary judgment.

Defendant’s motion is DENIED.