Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV40448, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV40448    Hearing Date: January 9, 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

Cross-Defendant HP Communications, Inc. (Cross-Defendant) moves to continue the trial, and all trial-related dates, which is currently set for April 26, 2023, for 90 days, to a date in February, 2024.  Plaintiff Irene Lopez Tarin (Plaintiff) opposes the motion.  Cross-Defendant 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, Cross-Defendant seeks a continuance of trial to allow Cross-Defendant time to conduct a substantial amount of discovery, including, but not limited to, written discovery among all parties, as well as taking or re-taking depositions of other parties.  Cross-Defendant advances the declaration of its attorney, Hany A. Nicola who attests that Plaintiff did not name Cross-Defendant as a Defendant in her original Complaint.  (Declaration of Hany A. Nicola, ¶ 2.)  Further, Defendant/Cross-Complainant, Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T did not name Cross-Defendant in its original cross-complaint.  (Declaration of Hany A. Nicola, ¶ 4.). Cross-Defendant was not named as a party in the Cross-Complaint until July 7, 2022, and was not served with the pleadings until July 8, 2022.   (Declaration of Hany A. Nicola, ¶ 5.)  Plaintiff then filed a “Doe” amendment, naming Cross-Defendant as a Doe Defendant in her First Amended Complaint.  (Declaration of Hany A. Nicola, ¶ 6.)  Cross-Defendant argues that because it was added into the suit two years after its initial filing, it would suffer irreparable harm and prejudice if the trial and trial related dates were not continued to allow it sufficient opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has had since July 8, 2022, to prepare for trial which is sufficient time to understand the discovery and develop their defense.  Plaintiff concludes there is simply no good cause for a trial continuance. 

Although the agrees that a trial continuance may be warranted to conduct necessary discovery, the Court finds that Cross-Defendant has not established good cause to continue the trial to February 2024 – over thirteen months from the date of the hearing on the motion – notwithstanding its discovery needs. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies Cross-Defendant’s motion to continue trial and all trial related dates without prejudice.  Cross-Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.