Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV16745, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV16745    Hearing Date: September 8, 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

September 8, 2022

CASE NUMBER

20STCV16745

MOTION

Motion to Continue Trial

MOVING PARTY

Defendant Javier Velazquez

OPPOSING PARTY

Plaintiff Jose Rosalio Fuentes Guzman

 

MOTION

 

Plaintiff Jose Rosalio Fuentes Guzman sued defendant Javier Velazquez (“Velazquez”) based on a motor vehicle collision.  Velazquez moves to continue trial, which is currently set for November 9, 2022, to an unspecified date.  Plaintiff opposes the motion only to the extent that Defendant did not specify the length of the requested continuance.

 

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, Velazquez seeks a trial continuance to permit the parties time to complete necessary discovery and prepare for trial.  According to counsel for Velazquez, Mark La Rosa (“La Rosa”), Plaintiff amended the complaint on June 6, 2022, to add defendants Francisco Javier Velazquez and J&F Transport, Inc.  (collectively, “Named Defendants”) (Declaration of Mark La Rosa, ¶ 3.)  La Rosa also states that Velazquez and defendant Jose Angel Perez Villanueva have filed a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint against Gorge Jue Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Hugo Ivan Jimenezsantos.  (Declaration of Mark La Rosa, ¶ 5.)  Finally, La Rosa states that, as of the filing date of the motion, Named Defendants have not been served by Plaintiff, but will need additional time to file responsive pleadings, conduct discovery, and prepare for trial once they have been served.  (Declaration of Mark La Rosa, ¶ 8.) 

 

In opposition, Plaintiff represents that the parties agreed that a continuance of six months is appropriate. 

 

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

 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 

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