Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV22076, Date: 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV22076    Hearing Date: December 12, 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

December 12, 2022

CASE NUMBER

19STCV22076

MOTION

Motion to Continue Trial

MOVING PARTIES

Defendant Pedro Barrera

OPPOSING PARTY

None

 

MOTION

 

Defendant Pedro Barrera (Defendant) moves to continue the trial, including all related dates and deadlines in this matter, which is currently set for January 30, 2023, to June 26, 2023.  Plaintiffs Erick Rojas and Maria Perez (collectively, Plaintiffs) have not filed an opposition to the motion.  Defendant advances a joint stipulation between the parties to continue trial to June 26, 2023.

 

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, Defendant argues there is good cause for a continuance based on a myriad of factors.  Defendant relies on the declaration of his counsel, Jeffrey P. Magwood (Counsel). Counsel states that plaintiff still has yet to submit to necessary defense medical examinations.  (Declaration of Jeffrey P. Magwood, ¶ 7.)  Counsel only recently substituted in as counsel for Defendant on September 12, 2022.  (Declaration of Jeffrey P. Magwood, ¶ 8.)  Counsel has two trials scheduled for set for January 23, 2023, neither which are likely to settle, and both are likely to last beyond one week, thus interfering with the current trial date for the case at issue, January 30, 2023.  (Declaration of Jeffrey P. Magwood, ¶ 9.)  Counsel and Plaintiff’s counsel are continuing to engage in settlement discussions and require additional time to do so.  (Declaration of Jeffrey P. Magwood, ¶ 10.)  Finally, all parties have stipulated to a trial continuance.  (Supplemental Declaration of Jeffrey P. Magwood, ¶ 5, Exhibit A.)

 

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

 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 

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