Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22SMCV02467, Date: 2024-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02467    Hearing Date: March 14, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Defendant, Cross-Defendant, and Cross-Complainant Lakos Corporation (“Lakos”) filed an ex parte application for an order to continue the trial date and pretrial discovery cut-off dates by twelve months.  Defendant and Cross-Complainant Watertronics, LLC (“Watertronics”) has filed a joinder to Lakos’ application.  The application 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”].)  

            California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c), provides:

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  Circumstances that may indicate good cause include:

[…]

(5)  The addition of a new party if:

(A)  The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or

(B)  The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case;

(6) A party’s excused inability to obtain essentially testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or

(7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.

Factors the Court considers in ruling on a motion for continuance include:

(1)  The proximity of the trial date;

(2)  Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party;

(3)  The length of the continuance requested;

(4)  The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance;

(5)  The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;

(6)  If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;

(7)  The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;

(8)  Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;

(9)  Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;

(10)  Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and

(11)  Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)

            Here, Lakos argues that a continuance is warranted because Lakos first appeared in the case on January 31, 2024, when it answered Watertronics’ cross-complaint, and trial is currently set for April 15, 2024, giving Lakos insufficient time to conduct discovery and file dispositive motions.

            Watertronics joins in Lakos’ motion, arguing that due to Lakos’ recent addition to the case, Watertronics has similarly been unable to conduct necessary discovery and file dispositive motions “that may streamline       the case or the issues therein” prior to trial.  (Joinder at p. 3.) 

Watertronics further argues that there are no exigent circumstances, as this case involves a subrogation claim, and the homeowners who were directly damaged “have already been made whole.”  (Ibid.)  Further, the case was filed relatively recently, in November of 2022.  (Ibid.)

            The Court agrees that under the circumstances, the requested continuance is warranted to enable Lakos and the other parties to conduct discovery and file dispositive motions, if appropriate, prior to trial.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, the Court grants Lakos’ motion to continue trial and orders as follows:

·         The trial date, currently set for April 15, 2024, is continued to May 5, 2025, at 10:00 AM in Department 207.

·         The Final Status Conference, currently set for March 29, 2024, is continued to April 18, 2025 at 9:30 AM in Department 207.

·         All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall be based upon the new trial date of May 5, 2025.

·         The Court sets a Status Conference on October 29, 2024 at 8:30 am in Department 207.   All parties shall meet and confer, and cooperate in the preparation of a Joint Report which shall be filed no later than 5 court days before the Status Conference.  The Joint Report shall provide detailed information regarding the following:  Discovery, ADR and Motion Practice.  The minute order of March 14, 2024 shall provide the parties with additional information as to the contents of the Joint Report.

·         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. 

Lakos shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service regarding the same. 

DATED:  March 14, 2024                                                      ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court