Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 2021-01208787, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Continue Trial

Defendant Laguna View Center’s Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED.

The trial is CONTINUED to September 26, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. in Department N15.

All deadlines based on the trial date shall be extended consistent with the new trial date.

Parties and counsel are ORDERED not to schedule any matters in conflict with the anticipated trial dates, based on the trial estimate of 5-7 days.

Parties and counsel ORDERED to abide by Local Rule 317 prior to trial.

In any future motions or requests to continue the trial, the moving party shall explain in detail why the mandate of California Rules of Court Rule 3.1332(a) should not apply. (See Cal. Rules Ct., Rule 3.1332(a) [“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.”; see also Cal. Rules Ct., Rule 3.1332(c) [“continuances of trials are disfavored”].)

Defendant Laguna View Center, LLC dba Laguna View Detox moves to continue trial in this case. Plaintiff Robin Smith has not filed an opposition to the motion.

A party moving to continue trial must make an affirmative showing of “good cause” justifying the requested relief. (See Cal. Rules Ct., Rule 3.1332(c).) In addition, the motion must be made “as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.” (Cal. Rules Ct., Rule 3.1332(b).)

The circumstances constituting good cause, sufficient to justify a trial continuance, include among other things, a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts. (Cal. Rules Ct., Rule 3.1332(c).) In addition, the court may consider any fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion. (See Cal. Rules Ct., Rule 3.1332(d).)

As the Court of Appeal has explained:

A motion for continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. However, the trial judge must exercise his discretion with due regard to all interests involved, and the refusal of a continuance which has the practical effect of denying the applicant a fair hearing is reversible error. Judges are faced with opposing responsibilities when continuances are sought. On the one hand, they are mandated by the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act (Gov. Code, 68600 et seq.) to actively assume and maintain control over the pace of litigation. On the other hand, they must abide by the guiding principle of deciding cases on their merits rather than on procedural deficiencies. Such decisions must be made in an atmosphere of substantial justice. When the two policies collide head-on, the strong public policy favoring disposition on the merits outweighs the competing policy favoring judicial efficiency.

(Oliveros v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 120 Cal. App. 4th 1389, 1395; see also Freeman v. Sullivant (2011) 192 Cal. App. 4th 523, 527; Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4th 1081, 1085.)

The court finds that good cause to continue the trial has been shown and Defendant has sought the continuance as soon as reasonably practicable. Here, Defense counsel’s excused unavailability prevented the parties from completing discovery before the discovery cutoff. (See Decl. of Constance A. Endelicato, ¶¶ 3-4, Exh. B.)

Defendant shall give notice of this ruling.