Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV08860, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV08860    Hearing Date: January 13, 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 Estate of Robert Ishii (Defendant) moves to continue the trial and all trial related dates, which is currently set for June 16, 2023, to December 1, 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 seeks a continuance of trial to conduct further discovery.  Defendant relies on the declaration of Defendant’s counsel, David J. Mendoza (Counsel).  Counsel states that Defendant only appeared in the case starting on May 24, 2022.  (Declaration of David J. Mendoza, ¶ 2.)  Further Counsel states that Plaintiff Stewart Nakabayashi has failed to respond to discovery, however Defendant’s motions to compel cannot be heard until April of 2023 which is only two and half months before the current trial date.  (Declaration of David J. Mendoza, ¶¶ 3-6.)   Defendant argues this does not leave enough time to complete Plaintiff’s deposition, subpoena medical records, and retain experts based on Plaintiff’s discovery responses.  (Declaration of David J. Mendoza, ¶ 6.)

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 orders as follows:

• The trial date, currently set for June 16, 2023, is continued to December 14, 2023 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 32.

   

• The Final Status Conference, currently set for June 5, 2023, is continued to November 30, 2023 at 10:00 A.M. in Department 32.

   

• All discovery and pre-trial motion cut off dates shall be associated with the trial of December 14, 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 orders and file a proof of service of such.