Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV20552, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV20552    Hearing Date: February 28, 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 Thomas Ray Schwabe (Defendant) moves to continue the trial, and the final status conference, which are currently set for March 28, 2023, and March 14, 2023, respectively, to a mutually convenient date the Court deems appropriate, approximately four to six months beyond the currently set dates.  Plaintiff Natasha T. Harris (Harris) 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 seeks a continuance of trial to allow time to reassign this case to a new trial counsel and allow said new trial counsel opportunity to adequately prepare for trial.  Defendant relies on the declaration of Defendant’s counsel, Robert Edgerton (Counsel).  Counsel avers that William Barrett had conducted the defense of this case on behalf of Defendant. William Barrett recently left the firm (February 3, 2023) and other attorneys in Counsel’s law office have taken over other files that Mr. Barrett was handling that were coming up for trial in the near future. Counsel has not yet been able to find a trial attorney in the office who is available for this case. (Declaration of Robert Edgerton, ¶ 3.)  Counsel argues that it takes time to become familiar with a file, speak to the client and the client’s carrier, review discovery and the upcoming discovery cutoff, respond to the upcoming expert witness exchange, take expert depositions and the like.  (Declaration of Robert Edgerton, ¶ 4.)

Accordingly, 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 all trial related dates and orders as follows:

·         The trial date, currently set for March 28, 2023, is continued to August 9, 2023 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 32.

·         The Final Status Conference, currently set for March 14, 2023, is continued to July 26, 2023 at 10:00 A.M. in Department 32.

·         All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall be associated with the trial date of March 28, 2023.

·         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.