Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: BC717833, Date: 2022-08-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC717833 Hearing Date: August 11, 2022 Dept: 34
This case was filed four years ago, on August 14,
2018.
The Court has continued the trial in this case six times. Trial was originally scheduled for 1/13/20.
Trial was then continued at the parties’ request on five separate
occasions: to 4/20/2020, to 8/3/2020, to
5/17/2021, to 11/15/2021, to 3/14/2022 and finally to 9/26/2022. Each time that the Court continued the trial,
it stated that there would be no further continuances.
On March 16, 2020, a
continuance was granted because Plaintiff stated that its principal was ill. On
March 11, 2021, a continuance was granted because Plaintiff stated that its PMK
could not sit for his deposition due to hearing loss. On 10/12/2021, a continuance was granted because
Plaintiff stated that it was unable to obtain an expert. On February 25, 2022, a continuance was
granted because Plaintiff stated that its expert had Covid.
During the last three
hearings when the Court continued the case, the parties stated that they were
expecting to settle the case.
Plaintiff now comes and asks
for yet another continuance, this time because its expert will be having surgery. If Plaintiff’s expert indeed is recovering
from surgery and is unavailable for trial, counsel know how to use the expert’s
deposition in lieu of live testimony.
The Court’s trial orders are
explicit:
“To ensure the prompt
disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the
date set for trial as certain.” (CRC Rule
3.1332(a).)
Since “continuances of trial
are disfavored,” the mere fact that counsel have stipulated to continue the
trial is not sufficient for the court to grant such a continuance. Rather, the Court will consider all of the
factors in CRC Rule 3.1332(c) before determining whether a continuance will be
granted. (Trial Orders, Dept. 34, § VI.)
Enough is enough.
The request for a continuance
is DENIED.