Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV09125, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV09125    Hearing Date: March 15, 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

Defendants Scott Jordan and Georgina Valdez (collectively, Defendants) move to continue the trial, including all related dates and deadlines in this matter, which is currently set for May 22, 2023, to a date in August 2023, or a convenient date thereafter.[1]  Plaintiffs Maria Diaz and Cesar Diaz (collectively, Plaintiffs) have not filed an opposition to the motion. 

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 a trial continuance to complete all phases of discovery and to fully investigate Plaintiffs’ alleged damages and injuries.  Defendants rely on the declaration of Defendants’ counsel, Laura Matteis (Counsel).  Counsel states that Defendants served the Plaintiffs with initial discovery requests on or about April 5, 2022, and to date no responses have been received.  (See Declaration of Laura Matteis, ¶¶ 6-7.)  On August 9, 2022, Counsel served Motions to Compel responses to discovery requests.  (Id. at ¶ 10.)  The Court scheduled a hearing for the Motions to Compel discovery responses for Plaintiff Maria Diaz on April 6, 2023, and for Cesar Diaz on April 7, 2023.  (Id. at ¶ 11.)  Counsel concludes, as the parties are only in the initial phase of discovery, Defendants will be severely prejudiced if this continuance is not granted as they will not have the proper time to perform a full and thorough investigation of the Plaintiffs’ claims and alleged injuries.

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 May 22, 2023, is continued to August 30, 2023, at 8:30 A.M. in Department 32.

·       The Final Status Conference, currently set for May 8, 2023, is continued to August 16, 2023 at 10:00 A.M. in Department 32.

·       All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall be based upon the new trial date of August 30, 2023.

·       Per the Discovery Act, the parties shall meet and confer forthwith to schedule and complete all non-expert discovery and to prepare for the completion of expert discovery to obviate the need for a further continuance of the trial. 

·       No further continuance of the trial absent sufficient good cause. 

Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.