Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV04906, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04906    Hearing Date: May 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

Defendant County of Los Angeles (Defendant) moves to continue the trial, which is currently set for August 8, 2023.  Plaintiffs Jorge R. Zamarita, Carlos R. Zamarjta, Deisi Rodriguez, Jozelee Rodriguez, Georgina Rodriguez (collectively, Plaintiffs) responded that they do not oppose the 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, Defendant seeks a continuance of trial to allow it sufficient time to complete necessary discovery as well as the opportunity to file a motion for summary judgment.  Defendant advances the declaration of its counsel, Robert R. Yap (Counsel) who avers that Plaintiffs did not serve their summons and complaint on Defendant until November 22, 2022.  (Declaration of Robert R. Yap, ¶ 3.)  Defendant did not appear in this action until December 22, 2022, when it answered Plaintiffs’ complaint.  (Declaration of Robert R. Yap, ¶ 4.). Counsel contends that the seven months between the time it appeared in the case and the discovery cutoff is not sufficient for Defendant to conduct all necessary discovery.  (Declaration of Robert R. Yap, ¶ 5.). Further Counsel notes that the earliest available hearing date for summary judgment is August 12, 2024 and thus Defendant cannot have a motion for summary judgment heard before the trial date as currently set.  (Declaration of Robert R. Yap, ¶ 6.)  Counsel states Defendant reserved the August 12, 2024 hearing date.  (Declaration of Robert R. Yap, ¶ 7.) 

The Court notes that Defendant fails to indicate a specific date it wishes to continue the trial to.  Notwithstanding, 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 August 8, 2023, is continued to September 16, 2024 at 8:30 AM in Department 32. [1] 

·         The Final Status Conference, currently set for July 25, 2023, is continued to September 4, 2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 32.

·         No further continuance of the trial absent sufficient good cause. 

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