Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV00299, Date: 2023-01-23 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 19STCV00299    Hearing Date: January 23, 2023    Dept: 32



PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are
encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if
a resolution may be reached.  If the
parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this
tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date
and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the
identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email
indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no
appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or
adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this
tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is
highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative
ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the
subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 





 



TENTATIVE
RULING



 





























DEPARTMENT



32



HEARING DATE



January
23, 2023



CASE NUMBER



19STCV00299



MOTION



Motion
to Continue Trial



MOVING PARTIES



Plaintiffs
Jennifer Flores and Christopher Flores, a minor, by and through his guardian
ad litem, Jennifer Flores



OPPOSING PARTY



None




 



MOTION



 



Plaintiffs Jennifer Flores and Christopher Flores, a minor, by and
through his guardian ad litem, Jennifer Flores (collectively, Plaintiffs) move
to continue the trial, including all related dates and deadlines in this
matter, which is currently set for April 6, 2023, to August 3, 2023.  Defendants have not filed an opposition.   



 



ANALYSIS



 



 “Continuances are granted only
on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.”  (In
re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.)  A
trial court has broad discretion in considering a request for a trial
continuance.  (Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11,
13-18.)  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 sets forth factors for the
Court to consider in ruling on a motion to continue trial.  Whether the parties have stipulated to the
postponement is a relevant factor for consideration.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 595.2, but see Lorraine v. McComb (1934) 220 Cal. 753,
756-757 [finding a stipulation to be merely “directory”].)  



 



Here, Plaintiffs argue there is good cause for a continuance based Plaintiffs’
counsel ongoing medical illness. 
Plaintiffs rely on the declaration of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Randall G.
Stevens (Counsel).  Counsel states that his
illness as well as complications associated with the COVID-19 pandemic does not
permit him to properly represent Plaintiffs in time for the current trial date.  (Declaration of Randall G. Stevens, ¶¶ 11-13.)  Counsel avers that to date, full and complete
discovery has not been completed by either side of this litigation due to
conditions and circumstances largely beyond Counsel’s control.  (Ibid.)



 



Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiffs have shown good cause for a
trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.



 



CONCLUSION
AND ORDER



 



Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to continue trial and
orders as follows: