Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV28583, Date: 2024-05-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV28583 Hearing Date: May 13, 2024 Dept: 31
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
Plaintiff(s), vs. MOXIE PEST CONTROL LP, ET AL., Defendant(s). | ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND TO REOPEN DISCOVERY Dept. 31 1:30 p.m. May 13, 2024 |
Plaintiffs Manuel Perez, Aiden Perez, and Ezekiel Perez (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Moxie Pest Control LP, and Darylvone Brown (“Defendants”), et al. for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. Trial is currently set for June 20, 2024.
Plaintiffs and Defendants now move to continue the current trial and related dates. No opposition to the motion has been filed.
Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted: (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance 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; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial. (See generally, CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).) Additional factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c), (d).)
Here, the parties assert there is good cause to continue the trial date because Plaintiff’s counsel is currently scheduled to start trial on June 18, 2024, which creates a direct conflict with this trial date. In addition, Plaintiff’s accident reconstruction expert, a critical expert witness, is unavailable to start trial on June 20, 2024 in this case as he is out of the country until July 5, 2024. Further, Defendant’s lead trial attorney Craig Humphrey is not available in July or August of 2024 and will be engaged in two jury trials in late July and August. Thereafter, Defendant’s lead trial attorney Humphrey will be away for a 21-day vacation and will not be available until September 16, 2024. The parties therefore propose trial be continued to September 30, 2024.
The motion is unopposed, and the parties have established good cause for the continuance due to the unavailability of Plaintiff’s expert witness, and the unavailability of counsel for both parties.
Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial is granted. The trial date is continued to September 30, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31. All discovery and expert cutoff dates are to be based on the new trial date.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
Dated this 13th day of May 2024
| |
Hon. Michelle C. Kim Judge of the Superior Court |