Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

DIVINA VILLEDA, an individual; and CONSUELO “LUCY” GAMBOA, an individual Plaintiff(s), vs. VILMA HOOD, an individual; JAN TARBLE, an individual; DEGA NALAYEH, an individual; RADOSTINA “TINA” VIDENOVA, an individual; SAN PASQUAL FIDUCIARY TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE OF THE JAN TARBLE TRUST, DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 1992 AS AMENDED, a Trustee; FILIPINO AMERICAN PERSONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES, LLC, a California company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant(s). VILMA HOOD, an individual; Cross-Complainant, vs. FILIPINO AMERICAN PERSONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES, LLC, and MARILOU FROST, an individual Cross-Defendants.	Case No.: 23STCV12816
	Hearing Date: November 7, 2024

	[TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Plaintiffs Motion for a Trial continuance

Background

On June 23, 2023 Divina Villeda and Consuela Gamboa (Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint regarding several California Labor Code violations. The Complaint was followed by a First Amended Complaint (FAC) which alleged fourteen causes of action against Vilma Hood (Hood); Jan Tarble (Tarble); Dega Nalayeh (Nalayeh); Radostina Videnova (Videnova); the San Pasqual Fiduciary Trust Company, As Trustee of the Jan Tarble Trust, Dated September 25, 1992 as Amended (SPF); and the Filipino American Personal Health Care Services, LLC (FAPH).

The motion now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue Trial (the Motion). Defendants Hood and Videnova oppose the Motion; Plaintiffs file a reply. Trial is currently scheduled for November 25, 2024.

Discussion

I. Motion to Continue Trial

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that although disfavored, the trial date may be continued for “good cause,” which includes (without limitation):

(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.

(Id., Rule 3.1332(c).)¿¿¿

The court may also consider the following factors: “(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.” (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1332(d).)¿¿ ¿

Analysis

In their moving papers, Plaintiffs assert several arguments to continue the current trial date of November 25, 2024 for six months. The primary arguments are: (1) the unavailability of Defendant Jan Tarble who died in May of 2024; (2) the addition of a new defendant, the personal representative for the Estate of Tarble; and (3) Plaintiffs’ excused inability obtain essential discovery.

After Defendant Tarble died during litigation a stay was placed on the case as to Defendant Tarble. A probate matter was later opened in June of 2024. On October 30, 2024, former Defendant SPF was appointed as the personal representative for Defendant Tarble and her estate. Plaintiffs argue that the personal representative must give notice to creditors and Plaintiffs will have up to four months to file Creditor’s Claims. Then Plaintiffs will file a motion to substitute SPF as the personal representative of the Tarble Estate into the instant case. Plaintiffs argue this could take six months or longer to complete.

Plaintiffs’ second argument is that good cause for a continuance exists if a new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial or other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery. This is prejudicial to both Plaintiffs and the personal representative, as well as any other party that may need to conduct discovery on the newly added party. Upon opposition, Defendant Hood argues that the non-Tarble defendants – Hood, Nalayeh, Videnova, and FAPH – would be prejudiced but fails to explain how outside of Hood already being prepared to go to trial. As specific to Hood, the delay may be undesirable, but it is not prejudicial. Defendant argues that the delay was manufactured by Plaintiff and essentially that Plaintiff should not be rewarded for seeking a trial continuance at the eleventh hour.

Plaintiffs also argue that their inability to obtain essential discovery is excused. The Court agrees insofar as the delays that occurred within probate court, specifically that the first hearing for Tarble’s Estate that occurred in July, and the inadvertent failure to consider Plaintiffs’ objections at an August 29 hearing in probate court. A personal representative was not appointed until October 30 after the resolution of Plaintiffs’ objections. Hood argues these objections were meritless, however the objections occurred in probate court, outside of this Court’s jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court will not comment on the merits of the objections.

Finally, this Court’s calendar cannot accommodate the trial as currently scheduled.

Taking into account the death of Defendant Tarble, the delays that occurred in probate court, the necessity of both Plaintiffs and the newly added personal representative SPF to conduct discovery, and the Court’s calendar, the Court agrees that a six-month continuance is in the interests of justice.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs to give notice.

DATED: November 7, 2024

________________________________

Hon. Michelle Kim

Judge of the Superior Court