Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 22NWCV01030, Date: 2024-06-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01030    Hearing Date: June 27, 2024    Dept: F

Heads v. Aguilar, et al., Case No. 22NWCV01030

Defendants move to continue trial, which is currently set for August 12, 2024.

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).)

Defendants argue that they have not had the chance to depose Plaintiff. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the parties have scheduled Plaintiff’s deposition for June 14, 2024. In reply, Defendants argue that they need to conduct multiple independent medical examinations and depositions of Plaintiff’s treating providers.

Defendants argue that their counsel is unavailable in August due to vacation. 

The Court finds it unclear if the deposition took place on June 14, 2024. The reply papers state, “If Plaintiff’s deposition goes forward in June, Defendant requests a trial continuance…” Thus, it is unclear what further discovery Defendants need.

The Court continues the motion to September _, 2024.

Moving party to give notice.