Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 22NWCV00977, Date: 2024-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00977    Hearing Date: September 13, 2024    Dept: F

Joseph Construction vs. Andy Tran, Case No. 22NWCV00977

This is a breach of contract action. Defendant Andy Tran moves ex parte to continue the trial.

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) unavailability of trial counsel or witnesses due to “death, illness, or other excusable circumstances”; (2) the addition of a new party depriving the new party (or other parties) from conducting discovery and preparing for trial; (3) “excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts”; or (4) “[a] significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case” preventing it from being ready for trial.

Other relevant considerations may include: “(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.” (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 (c).)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action only because an issue in this matter after the demurrer ruling on or about May 28, 2024. Defendant also argues that the identifies of the new parties, Cross-Defendant Razmik Construction and Cross-Defendant Razmik Minasian have been discovered recently and named as a party. The Court notes that Defendant filed amendments to the complaint on May 14, 2024.

Based on the above, the motion is GRANTED. Trial is continued from October 28, 2024 to March 24, 2025.

Moving party to give notice.