Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV08823, Date: 2023-06-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV08823    Hearing Date: June 20, 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

Defendants Kenneth Howard and Shaune Young (collectively, Defendants) move to continue the trial, and all trial-related dates, which is currently set for September 8, 2023, to a date that would accommodate the current MSJ hearing date of May 20, 2024.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

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, Defendants seek a continuance of trial to accommodate the Motion for Summary Judgment hearing date which is currently set for March 18, 2024.  Defendants rely on the declaration of their counsel, Jasmine H. NG (Counsel).  Counsel avers Defendants reserved the first available date for the motion for summary judgment which was March 18, 2024, after the currently set trial date.  (Declaration of Jasmine H. NG, ¶ 6.)  Counsel states that Defendants filed the motion for summary judgment on May 5, 2023.  (Declaration of Jasmine H. NG, ¶ 9.)  Defendants argue they will be irreparably harmed and unduly prejudiced if it is deprived of its right to have its motion heard.  (See, e.g., Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal. App. 3d 526, 529 [a trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of section 437c].) 

Therefore, the Court finds Defendants have shown good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to continue trial and orders as follows:

·         The trial date, currently set for September 8, 2023, is continued to May 20, 2024, at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

·         The Final Status Conference, currently set for August 25, 2023, is continued to May 6, 2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 32.

·         All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall be based upon the trial date of May 20, 2024.

·         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. 

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