Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV32919, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV32919    Hearing Date: March 16, 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

Defendants Heartland Express, Inc. of Iowa and Craig James Zackery (collectively, Defendants) move to continue the trial, including all related dates and deadlines in the consolidated actions, which is currently set for April 13, 2023, to October 10, 2023.  Plaintiff Chevette Pugh (Plaintiff) has filed a notice of non-opposition and no other party has filed an opposition to the motion. 

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, Defendants argue there is good cause for a continuance based on a new description of events provided by Plaintiff at her recent deposition.  Defendants rely on the declaration of Defendants’ counsel, David W. Seal (Counsel).  Counsel avers that Plaintiff’s initial discovery responses stated that she was “passed out” in a stolen vehicle, in the back seat, and the vehicle was driven around until it was involved in an accident.  (Declaration of David W. Seal, ¶ 3.)  On December 15, 2022, Plaintiff’s deposition went forward in which she testified for the first time that she was awake and handed the keys to her fiancé’s vehicle over to an unknown man, Ronald Anthony Mullen.  Counsel further attests Plaintiff’s deposition testimony also raised concerns of Plaintiff’s own competency.  (Declaration of David W. Seal, ¶¶ 12-15.) 

Therefore, the Court finds Defendants have shown good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

·       The trial date, currently set for April 13, 2023, is continued to October 27, 2023, at 8:30 A.M. in Department 32.

·       The Final Status Conference, currently set for March 30, 2023, is continued to October 16, 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 October 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. 

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