Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV08290, Date: 2023-06-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV08290    Hearing Date: June 29, 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 Bryan Combs (“Defendant”) move to continue the trial in this matter, which is currently set for August 30, 2023, for 4-5 months.  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 seeks a continuance of trial based upon defense expert, Dr. Lubow's calendar conflict due to his knee replacement surgery which is scheduled for September 7, 2023. Due to the time it would take to recover from the surgery, he would be unable to resume in person trial testimony until approximately 10-12 weeks post surgery; therefore, not before the end of November, 2023. (Bhatia Decl., ¶¶3(d), (f).) All parties have agreed to the continuance of the trial and all related dates. (Bhatia Decl., ¶3(a), Exh. A.)

The Court finds 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 August 30, 2023, is continued to December 28, 2023, at 8:30 A.M. in Department 32.

·         The Final Status Conference, currently set for August 16, 2023, is continued to December 14, 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 December 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.