Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV17211, Date: 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV17211    Hearing Date: March 27, 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/Cross-Complainant Francini Inc. (Francini) moves to continue the trial, and all trial-related dates, which is currently set for June 5, 2023, to at least thirty days after July 10, 2024, or to a date thereafter that is mutually convenient to the Court and all parties.  In the alternative, Francini seeks to specially set its Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication (MSJ/A) for hearing on May 5, 2023.  Cross-Defendant Armstrong Transport Group, LLC (Armstrong) opposes in part Francini’s request to specially set its MSJ/A hearing, and joins in part Francini’s motion to continue.  Plaintiff Manuel B. Segrera and Cross-Defendant Neon Logistics, LLC have not filed oppositions.  Francini replies.     

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, Francini seeks a continuance of trial to accommodate the MSJ/A date set for July 10, 2024.  Francini relies on the declaration of Francini’s counsel, Jonathan A. Ross (Counsel).  Counsel states when Francini sought to schedule the hearing date for its MSJ/A the earliest hearing date available pursuant to the Court’s motion reservation system was July 10, 2024.  (Declaration of Jonathan A. Ross, ¶ 6.)  Francini filed and served its MSJ/A on all parties on February 17, 2023.  (Declaration of Jonathan A. Ross, ¶ 8.)  Counsel further states that all parties have recently agreed to attend mediation which is currently scheduled to take place on July 17, 2023, after the current trial date.  (Declaration of Jonathan A. Ross, ¶ 10.)  Counsel concludes that based on the foregoing circumstances it is necessary to either specially set the MSJ/A, or continue the trial and trial related dates. 

In opposition, Armstrong argues a continuance of trial is appropriate here, rather than specially setting Francini’s MSJ/A.  Armstrong highlights that on February 28, 2023, Francini moved for leave to add a new cause of action for negligence against Defendants Armstrong and Neon.  Armstrong concludes the new cause of action constitutes a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.  Armstrong further argues that the parties have all agreed to participate in a mediation set for July 17, 2023, after the current trial date, and the interests of justice are best served by allowing the parties to attempt a mediated settlement.

In reply, Francini agrees with Armstrong that a continuance of the current trial date is appropriate.

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

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Francini’s motion to continue trial and all trial related dates and orders as follows:

·         The trial date, currently set for June 5, 2023, is continued to September 9, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

·         The Final Status Conference, currently set for May 22, 2023, is continued to August 26, 2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 32.

·         All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall be based upon the new trial date of September 9, 2024.

·         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. 

Francini shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.