Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV32214, Date: 2023-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV32214    Hearing Date: April 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 Edwin Hernandez Vasquez (Defendant) moves to continue the trial, including all related dates and deadlines in this matter, which is currently set for May 22, 2023, to September 20, 2023.  The motion is unopposed.

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 contends that there is good cause for the continuance of the trial and related discovery.  Defendant advances the declaration of Sandy D. Lira, counsel for Defendant (Counsel).  Counsel states that there is outstanding discovery including the deposition of Plaintiff Maria Candelaria Perez (Perez) and further responses to written discovery by Plaintiff Juventino Arellano (Arellano) who is self-represented.  (Declaration of Sandy D. Lira, ¶¶ 8, 12, 16, 19.)  Further, Defendant proffers a stipulation to continue the trial from counsel for Plaintiff Perez.  (Declaration of Sandy D. Lira, ¶ 20.)  In part, Defendant and Plaintiff Perez represent in the stipulation:   “The Parties require additional time before the current Final Status Conference and Trial dates in order to complete their investigation of liability and Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. Specifically, counsel for the Parties jointly require additional time to complete party depositions, witness depositions, secure supplemental discovery responses, and complete and Independent Medical Examination of Plaintiff.”  (Declaration of Sandy D. Lira, ¶ 22, Exhibit A.) 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court finds that Defendant has shown good cause for  the trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.  Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to continue trial and orders as follows:

·         The trial date, currently set for May 22, 2023 is continued to September 28, 2023 at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

·         The Final Status Conference, currently set for May 8, 2023 is continued to September 14, 2023 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 28, 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.