Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 22STCV07526, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling
All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.
Case Number: 22STCV07526 Hearing Date: April 2, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing
date: April
2, 2024
Moving
Party: Defendant
Robert O’Neill
Responding
Party: Plaintiff
CR&R Incorporated
Defendant’s
The Court
considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply. Defendant Robert O’Neill’s
Motion to Continue Trial is DENIED.
Background
This
case stems from allegations for breach of contract and money owed. On February
1, 2019 CR&R Incorporated (Plaintiff) entered into an Asset Purchase
Agreement whereby the assets of a separate company – United Pacific Waste –
were acquired. (Complaint, ¶ 7.) Included in these assets was a contract where
United Pacific Waste provided waste disposal services to Robert O’Neill
(Defendant). (Complaint, ¶ 8.) Plaintiff took over this contract and continued
to provide waste disposal services to Defendant. Defendant paid Plaintiff for
those services from February 2019 until June 2020 when Defendant stopped making
payments. (Complaint, ¶ 12.) Plaintiff alleges that, nonetheless it continued
to provide waste disposal services and Defendant now owes $56,817.00.
The
motion now before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial (the
Motion). Plaintiff opposes the Motion, and Defendant files a reply.
Discussion
Legal Standard
California Rules of Court, rule
3.1332, subdivision (c) states that although disfavored, the trial date may be
continued for “good cause,” which includes (without limitation):
(1) The
unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness,
or other excusable circumstances;
(2) The
unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable
circumstances;
(3) The
unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable
circumstances;
(4) The
substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing
that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;
(5) The
addition of a new party if:
(A) The new party has not had a
reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or
(B) The other parties have not had a
reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to
the new party's involvement in the case;
(6) A
party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other
material evidence despite diligent efforts; or
(7) A
significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of
which the case is not ready for trial.
(Id.,
Rule 3.1332(c).)¿¿¿
The court may also consider the
following factors: “(1) The proximity of the trial date; (2) Whether there was
any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any
party; (3) The length of the continuance requested; (4) The availability of
alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or
application for a continuance; (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will
suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) If the case is entitled to a
preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need
for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) The court's calendar
and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) Whether
trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) Whether all parties have
stipulated to a continuance; (10) Whether the interests of justice are best
served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions
on the continuance; and (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair
determination of the motion or application.” (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1332(d).)¿¿
¿
Code of Civil Procedure section
2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery proceedings.¿ In
doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave requested,
including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery, (2) the
diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the likelihood of
interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and (4) the
length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates.¿ (Code Civ. Proc.
§ 2024.050.)¿
Analysis
In their moving papers, Defendant
notes that the current trial is scheduled for August 5, 2024, and that they are
requesting a continuance for at least one year. The primary reason for the
request is that on October 26, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with special
interrogatories, and that Plaintiff served responses objecting to three of the
requests. After meet and confer efforts failed, Defendant filed for a motion to
compel further discovery responses. This motion was filed on January 11, 2024,
and Defense counsel states that the soonest available date was for December 27,
2024, well after the currently scheduled trial of August 5, 2024.
In their opposition papers,
Plaintiff argues that this delay is the fault of Defendant. Plaintiff contends
that Defendant waited 19 months after the Complaint was filed before
propounding any discovery, and questions why Defendant did not file an ex parte
application to advance the hearing of the motion to compel further.
Upon reply, Defendant does not
respond to these arguments, but rather asks the Court to grant the Motion and
sanction Plaintiff’s counsel in the process for what Defense counsel perceives
to be rule violations. The Court declines to do so at this time and denies the
Motion.
To be clear, in the moving papers,
Defendant requests that the trial be postponed for at least a year because
three interrogatories were objected to. All three of these interrogatories
request information regarding a person most knowledgeable to testify. (See
Motion, 2:15-23.) Plaintiff points out that Defendant has the option to serve a
notice under CCP § 2025.230, which requires Plaintiff then produce the most
qualified person to testify. Additionally, Defendant has the option of filing
an ex parte application to advance the December 27, 2024 hearing on the motion
to compel further.
One of the primary factors the Court
considers in evaluating a motion to continue trial is whether there are
alternative means to address the issue brought to the Court’s attention. Here,
there are two specific avenues Defendant has yet to avail themselves to.
Therefore, the Court denies the Motion.
Conclusion
Defendant
Robert O’Neill’s Motion to Continue Trial is DENIED.
It
is so ordered.
Dated: April 2, 2024
_______________________
Rolf M. Treu
Judge of the
Superior Court