Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV35246, Date: 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35246    Hearing Date: April 11, 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 Ronni Reed (“Plaintiff”) moves to continue the trial, including all related dates and deadlines in this matter, which is currently set for April 27, 2023, to a later date. 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, Plaintiff seeks a continuance of the trial because Plaintiff has filed a motion to consolidate this action with Roberson v. The Cheesecake Factory, Inc., Case No. 21STCV02672.  In support of the motion, Plaintiff advances the declaration of Peter Nwosu, counsel for Plaintiff, who states in pertinent part:  “On October 05, 2020 court granted an application for Case No.: 21STCV35246 and Case No.: 21STCV02672 to be consolidated. On February 16, 2023 I filed an application with the court on behalf of John Roberson for consolidation of these cases. Unfortunately, the next available date to hear the motion is October 18, 2023. The trial dates in the cases are March 23, 2023 and May 25, 2023.”  (See Declaration of Peter Nwosu, ¶ 8.) 

First, in this action (21STCV35246), Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate which is set for hearing on September 12, 2023.  Moreover, the Court notes that the plaintiff in 21STCV02672 filed a motion to consolidate which is set for hearing on October 18, 2023.  The Court is uncertain why there are two different motions to consolidate, set for hearing on different dates.  Nevertheless, as the hearing dates now stand, the hearing on the motion in 21STCV35246 will occur before the motion set for hearing in 21STCV02672, which is the basis for the instant  motion to continue trial.  Second, the Court did not grant an application on October 5, 2020 “to consolidate” 21STCV02672 and 21STCV35246.  Instead, the Court notes that it related said actions on October 5, 2022.  Third, the Court finds that the trial date in 21STCV35246 is not set in either March or May 2023, but on April 13, 2023. 

As crafted, the Court finds counsel’s declaration to be faulty, and accordingly finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish good cause to continue the trial under the California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial.  Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.