Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: BC717833, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC717833    Hearing Date: August 18, 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 apparently died on May 12, 2022 and hence “cannot be available for trial.”  (Ex Parte Motion, p. 1:27.)  According to the declarations attached to the ex parte motion, counsel was not aware of their expert’s death until August 13, 2022.

The Court understands that Plaintiff’s ex parte is unopposed.  However, this is not sufficient.  The California Rules of Court, and 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.  Counsel will have had four months from its expert’s death – and six weeks from the time that counsel stated he belatedly learned about his expert’s death – to find another expert.

The request for a continuance is DENIED.