Judge: Michael J. Strickroth, Case: 2021-01226580, Date: 2023-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Continuance of Trial

Defendant M. Joan Truman’s unopposed Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED.

Pursuant to California Rule of Court, rule 3.1332(c), although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. A court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause. (Ibid.) Rule 3.1332(c) indicates that the circumstances constituting good cause, sufficient to justify a trial continuance, 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

Additionally, subdivision (d) indicates that the court may consider:

(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.

Here, Defendant seeks a trial continuance due to the unavailability of trial counsel.  Trial in this matter is currently set for September 11, 2023.

Pursuant to attorney Gonter’s Declaration, counsel will be unavailable for trial in the months of September 2023 and December 2023 due to pre-planned family vacation out of the country.  Given Gonter’s unavailability, there have been no previous trial continuances, and the fact that Plaintiff did not oppose the instant motion, the Court finds good cause and grants the motion.  Discovery, motion and expert cutoff dates are to be based on the new trial date.

Counsel are to confer with each other and find a mutually agreeable new trial date, and so advise the court prior to the hearing.  If counsel cannot mutually agree to a new trial date and so notify the court before the hearing, counsel are required to attend the hearing ready to select a new trial date.

Moving party defendant to give notice.