Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV19904, Date: 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV19904    Hearing Date: March 24, 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 Gold Canvaz, Inc. dba Laundramat of Vermont (Defendant) moves to continue the trial, including all related dates and deadlines, which is currently set for May 25, 2023 to September 21, 2023.  Plaintiff Salvador Sandoval has not filed an opposition.

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 Plaintiff’s new medical condition, and his related unavailability for deposition.  Defendant relies on the declaration of Defendant’s counsel, Shelly Stuppiello (Counsel).  Counsel avers that according to counsel for Plaintiff, Plaintiff has undergone a leg amputation and will be unavailable to appear for deposition, which has already been rescheduled on several occasions, for an undetermined period of time.  (Declaration of Shelly Stuppiello, ¶¶ 4-5, 8.)  Counsel further avers that the parties have begun settlement discussions, however due to the recent medical events of Plaintiff, more time is necessary to further said discussions.  (Declaration of Shelly Stuppiello, ¶¶ 3, 5, 20.)  Finally, Counsel attests that both Defendant and Plaintiff are in agreement regarding the requested trial continuance.  (Declaration of Shelly Stuppiello, ¶ 10, Exhibit B.)

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:

·       The trial date, currently set for May 25, 2023, is continued to September 27, 2023, at 8:30 A.M. in Department 32.

·       The Final Status Conference, currently set for May 11, 2023, is continued to September 13, 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 September 27, 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. 

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