Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV20879, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20879    Hearing Date: September 27, 2022    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 Loyola Marymount University (“Defendant”) moves to continue the trial in this matter, which is currently set for December 2, 2022, to March 20, 2023. Plaintiff has stipulated to the continuance.

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 permit the parties to attend a mediation with Hon. Joseph S. Biderman.  Defendants rely on the declaration of Defendant’s counsel, Anastasia K. Olano (“Counsel”).  Counsel states the first available date for mediation is December 8, 2022.  (Declaration of Anastasia K. Olano, ¶ 4.b.) All parties have stipulated to the continuance of the trial and all related dates. (Id., at ¶ 4.c., Exh. B.)

Preliminarily, the Court finds good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, provided that the parties schedule the mediation as noted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court will continue the hearing on Defendant’s motion to continue trial to October 11, 2022 at 1:30 PM in Department 32 in order for the parties to schedule the proposed mediation and advise the Court of the date scheduled for the mediation.  At the continued hearing, if the parties have scheduled the mediation, then the Court may grant the motion.  

Defendant shall give notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.