Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV40906, Date: 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV40906    Hearing Date: April 11, 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

MOTION

Defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) moves to continue the trial, including all related dates and deadlines in this matter, which is currently set for May 9, 2023, to October 2023 or later.  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, Defendant seeks a continuance of trial because on March 14, 2023, it substituted new counsel.  Defendant relies on a declaration of Defendant’s counsel, Tania Ochoa (“Counsel”).  Counsel states that on March 14, 2023, Defendant substituted Tom Madruga of Olivarez Madruga Law Organization, LLP, as new counsel.  (Declaration of Tania Ochoa, ¶ 3, Exhibit A.)  

Apart from the substitution of counsel, Defendant has not provided additional information in Counsel’s declaration establishing the need to continue the trial to October 2023 or later.  Without such information, the Court finds Defendant lacks good cause for a trial continuance as requested pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court denies Defendant’s motion to continue trial.  Defendant shall give notice of this order, and file a proof of service of such.