Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV05029, Date: 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV05029 Hearing Date: April 24, 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 |
April
24, 2023 |
|
CASE NUMBER |
19STCV05029 |
|
MOTION |
Motion
to Continue Trial |
|
MOVING PARTIES |
Defendants
Patterson Dental Supply, Inc. and Brian James Decker |
|
OPPOSING PARTY |
None |
MOTION
Defendants Patterson Dental Supply, Inc. and Brian James Decker (collectively,
Defendants) moves to continue the trial, which is currently set for June 20,
2023 to October 3, 2023. 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, Defendants seek to continue trial to provide time for the Court
to hear and make orders in response to Defendants’ discovery motions, and for
Plaintiff to respond to the orders of said motions. Defendants attest the continuance would
further provide them time to review any discovery provided in response to said
motions. Defendants rely on the
declaration of Defendants’ counsel, Arielle I. Berne (Counsel). Counsel avers that Defendants believe this
case is ripe for a mediated resolution, should Plaintiff provide the discovery
Defendants have requested, and the parties have set mediation for June 12,
2023. (Declaration of Arielle I. Berne,
¶ 2.) Counsel further explains on
October 7, 2022, this Court ordered Plaintiff to sere verified responses to
Defendants’ Supplemental Interrogatories and Supplemental Requests for
Production without objections within 30 days of notice of the Court’s
orders. (Declaration of Arielle I.
Berne, ¶ 7.) Counsel states that
Defendants did not receive responses to Defendants’ Supplemental Discovery
requests until December 23, 2022.
(Declaration of Arielle I. Berne, ¶ 10.)
Counsel further notes that there remain four sets of discovery
propounded by Defendants on Plaintiff on May 13, 2022, and July 5, 2022, to
which she still has not responded.
(Declaration of Arielle I. Berne, ¶ 12.)
On October 7, 2022, Counsel reserved hearings on motions to compel this
remaining discovery on the earliest available hearing date, May 22, 2023. (Declaration of Arielle I. Berne, ¶ 12.)
Therefore, the Court finds Defendants have shown good cause for a
trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.
CONCLUSION
AND ORDER
Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to continue trial and
orders as follows:
·
The trial date, currently set for June 20, 2023,
is continued to October 3, 2023, at 8:30 AM in Department 32.[1]
·
The Final Status Conference, currently set for June
5, 2023, is continued to September 19, 2023 at 10:00 AM in Department 32.
·
No further continuance of the trial absent
sufficient good cause.
Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s
ruling and file a proof of service of such.
[1] A continuance or postponement of the trial does not
operate to reopen discovery proceedings. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020,
subd. (b); see also Pelton-Shepherd Indus., Inc. v. Delta Packaging
Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1575, fn. 10 [“on motion of any
party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings or to reopen
discovery after a new trial date has been set”].) Here, Defendants did not request to continue or
reset the discovery and pre-trial motion cut off dates in accordance with a new
trial date. (See Defendants’ Notice of
Motion, pp. 1-2.)