Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV01271, Date: 2025-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01271    Hearing Date: January 9, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

This case arises from an automobile collision.  On March 22, 2023, Plaintiffs Sara Toribio-Ruiz and Paul Parra brought suit against Defendants Liliana Barrios Viamari and Michael Viamari, alleging two causes of action for (1) negligence; and (2) loss of consortium.

The Court initially set the final status conference on August 23, 2024 and the trial on  September 9, 2024. 

On July 25, 2024, counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendants filed a joint stipulation to continue the final status conference and trial on the grounds that they “have been unable to complete crucial discovery prior to the current trial date[.]”  The Court rejected the stipulation, expressly finding “no good cause to continue the trial as requested as the parties have not been diligent in completing discovery, especially non-expert discovery” but indicated it would “consider continuing the trial if the parties schedule mediation no later than November 1, 2024.”  (Minute Order, Aug. 9, 2024.)

On August 23, the parties filed another joint stipulation to continue the trial, final status conference, and related deadlines, which the Court granted because the parties indicated they scheduled a mediation with Barry Plotkins for November 1, 2024.  Accordingly, the Court continued the final status conference to March 21, 2025 and the trial to April 7, 2025.  In granting the stipulation, the Court noted, “Per the Discovery Act, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer forthwith […] to obviate the need for a further continuance of the Trial” and that the Court would grant “[n]o further continuance of the Trial absent sufficient good cause.”  (Stipulation and Order, Aug. 23, 2024.)

Thus, the final status conference is currently scheduled for March 21, 2025, and the trial is scheduled for April 7, 2025. 

Plaintiff Sara Toribio-Ruiz (“Plaintiff”) now moves to continue the trial again on the grounds that Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, preventing Plaintiff from adequately preparing for trial.  The motion is unopposed.

ANALYSIS

            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:

(1)  The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(2)  The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(3)  The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(4)  The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;

(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 essential 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).)

            As the Court previously indicated, Counsel’s failure to timely and diligently conduct routine non-expert discovery and file the appropriate discovery motions does not constitute an excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.     

Moreover, Counsel has not detailed any efforts to obtain the requested discovery, which Counsel propounded in April 2024, from June 13, 2024, approximately a week after the extended deadline to provide responses, to November 7, 2024, when Counsel “sent another email to defendant’s counsel” which defendant’s counsel ignored.  

            As such, Counsel has neither demonstrated that the inability to obtain the requested documents was excused, nor that Counsel made diligent efforts to timely obtain them.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance of the final status conference, trial, and related discovery cut-off dates.  In short, the Court finds no good cause to grant another continuance of the trial.

            Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

DATED:  January 9, 2025                                                      ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court