Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV01203, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 19STCV01203    Hearing Date: August 16, 2022    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

August 16, 2022

CASE NUMBER

19STCV01203

MOTION

Motion to Continue Trial

MOVING PARTY

Plaintiff Paul Joseph Cosato

OPPOSING PARTY

None

 

MOTION

 

Plaintiff Paul Joseph Cosato sued defendant West Coast Arborists, Inc. based on a trip and fall.  Plaintiff moves to continue the trial, which is currently set for October 4, 2022, to an unspecified date, with all pre-trial motion and discovery cutoffs to be based on the new trial date.  Defendant has filed a notice of joinder to the motion.  The motion is unopposed.  

 

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, Plaintiff seeks a trial continuance to permit the parties time to complete necessary discovery.  According to counsel for Plaintiff, Deedra Alvarado (“Alvarado”), Plaintiff named Defendant in this action via Doe Amendment on June 7, 2022, and served Defendant with the summons and complaint on June 21, 2022.  (Declaration of Deedra Alvarado, ¶¶ 7-8.)  Alvarado states Defendant filed its answer to Plaintiff’s complaint on June 29, 2022.  (Declaration of Deedra Alvarado, ¶ 9.)  Plaintiff thus concludes that, because Defendant has recently been added to this litigation, the parties require more time to conduct necessary discovery and prepare for trial.

 

The Court finds Plaintiff has shown good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 

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