Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV06934, Date: 2024-03-19 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 21STCV06934    Hearing Date: March 19, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer and to Continue Trial

Moving Party: Defendant A1 American Builders Inc.

Resp. Party:    None

The Motion to Continue Trial is DENIED.

¿ 

BACKGROUND:

On February 23, 2021, Plaintiff State Farm General Insurance Company filed its Complaint against Defendant A1 American Builders Inc. on a cause of action for negligence.

On November 1, 2021, by request of Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office dismissed with prejudice the doe defendants from the Complaint.

On January 11, 2023, the Court scheduled Trial for December 4, 2023.

On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint (FAC).

On October 18, 2023, the Court denied the Parties’ request to continue trial because no good cause was shown.

On November 17, 2023, the Court on its own motion continued Trial from December 4, 2023 to May 13, 2024. The Court stated: “No further continuance allowed.” (Minute Order dated November 17, 2023, p. 1.)

On December 4, 2023, Defendant filed its Answer to the FAC.

On February 5, 2024, the Court denied the Parties’ request to continue trial, noting its prior statement of “No further continuances.” (Minute Order dated February 5, 2024, p. 1.)

On February 20, 2024, Defendant filed its Motion to Continue Trial. Defendant concurrently filed its Proposed Order.

No opposition or other response has been filed to the Motion.

ANALYSIS:

I.          Legal Standard

Pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.1332(b), “[a] party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”

“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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c); See also In re Marriage of Falcone (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823

(“Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.”).)

Rule 3.1332(c) indicates that circumstances that may indicate good cause include “the unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances,” “[a] party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts,” and “[a] significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case a result of which the case is not ready for trial.”

Other factors to consider under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(d) 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.

II.       Discussion

Defendant moves the Court to vacate the current Trial and Trial Readiness Conferences dates and to continue them until November 2024 or later. (Motion, p. 6:19–22.)

Defendant argues that there is good cause for the requested continuance. (Motion, p. 4:4–5.) Specifically, Defendant states: (1) that the Parties have not conducted discovery, depositions, site inspections, expert discovery, or written discovery; (2) that Defense Counsel has recently substituted into this matter; (3) that Defendant has not previously requested a trial continuance; (4) that the Parties have stipulated to the requested continuance; (5) that no party will suffer prejudice from the continuance; (6) that Defendant will suffer significant prejudice if it does not have more time to conduct discovery; and (7) that the interests of justice are best served by the continuance. (Id. at pp. 4:25-27, 5:1–2, 5:9–13, 6:6–7, 6:10–17.)

        Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion.

        The Court disagrees with both parties.

This case was filed more than three years ago. The Court recognizes that there was significant delay in this matter due to the entry and subsequent vacatur of default judgment. Yet it appears that no discovery has been conducted by either side during the past fourteen months since November 7, 2022, when the Court vacated the default judgment. Furthermore, when Plaintiff and Defendant requested via stipulation at multiple hearings for continuances, the Court was consistently clear that there would not be any further continuances. (Minute Order dated November 17, 2023, p. 1; Minute Order dated February 5, 2024, p. 1.)

Good cause has not been shown.

III.     Conclusion

The Motion to Continue Trial is DENIED.