Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV20017, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20017    Hearing Date: April 25, 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

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Rafic Kamali (Plaintiff) moves to continue the trial, including all related dates and deadlines in this matter, which is currently set for May 11, 2023, to October 16, 2023.  Defendant/Cross-Complainant Juan Manuel Vasquez (Defendant) joins in Plaintiff’s 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, Plaintiff and Defendant argue there is good cause for a continuance based on the parties’ need to complete discovery, namely the depositions of both Plaintiff and Defendant.  Plaintiff and Defendant rely on the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, Sandy V. Lira (Counsel).  Counsel states that all parties in this matter have stipulated to a trial continuance.  (Declaration of Sandy V. Lira, ¶ 2, Exhibit A.)  Counsel explains that Plaintiff’s deposition was noticed for and began on February 6, 2023, however it was not completed due to scheduling conflicts and technological issues.  (Declaration of Sandy V. Lira, ¶ 3.)  Counsel further notes that Defendant’s deposition was also noticed for February 6, 2023.  (Declaration of Sandy V. Lira, ¶ 4.)  However, the deposition was later taken off calendar due to a medical family emergency of Defendant.  (Declaration of Sandy V. Lira, ¶ 4.) 

The Court finds that though Plaintiff and Defendant have shown good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, they failed to justify the length of the trial continuance.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants, in part, Plaintiffs and Defendant’s motion to continue trial and orders as follows:

·       The trial date, currently set for May 11, 2023, is continued to November 28, 2023, at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

·       The Final Status Conference, currently set for April 25, 2023, is continued to November 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 November 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. 

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