The court considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a trip and fall incident in the City of Burbank. Plaintiff Sonja Elias (plaintiff) filed the complaint against defendant City of Burbank (defendant) on November 14, 2022. Plaintiff filed the amended complaint on March 7, 2023. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) general negligence; (2) premises liability; and (3) violations of the Health & Safety Code section 19955, Civil Code sections 51, 51.5, 52(a), 54, 54.1, and 54.3, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff alleges that on November 18, 2021, she tripped and fell due to an uneven/raised/displaced portion of the sidewalk at or near 1315 North Ontario Street, Burbank, CA 91505. As a result, plaintiff sustained injuries and incurred damages.

On June 21, 2023, plaintiff filed a stipulation where she agreed to withdraw her third cause of action labeled as “ADA/Civil Code Page 6” and to allege her first cause of action for general negligence only against defendant DOES 1-50 and not against defendant City of Burbank. Defendant agreed to withdraw its demurrer and motion to strike plaintiff’s first amended complaint. Defendant filed its answer on July 17, 2023.

On May 17, 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation to continue the trial set for November 19, 2024 to March 4, 2025, because the parties scheduled mediation with Judicate West for the first available, mutually agreeable date of November 20, 2024. The court denied the parties’ request to continue trial on June 4, 2024.

Defendant filed the instant motion on September 3, 2024. No opposition has been received. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration in support of defendant’s motion to continue trial on September 30, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (a), “[t]o ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (b), “[a] party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that “[a]lthough continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause

requiring the continuance.” Subdivision (c) also sets out what can constitute good cause. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (d) sets forth factors that are relevant in determining whether to grant a continuance.

DISCUSSION

As the trial in this action is scheduled for November 19, 2024, defendant requests a continuance of trial to March 5, 2025, or a date thereafter, in order to complete mediation scheduled for the first available, mutually agreeable date of November 20, 2024, with the mutually agreed upon adjudicator Peter Searle (Mr. Searle) of Judicate West. Defendant also requests that all related dates comport with the new trial date.

Defendant argues that there is good cause for the continuance as required by California Rules of Court Rule 3.1332 subdivision (c). Defenant sets forth that the applicable factors under Rules of Court Rule 3.1332 subdivision (d) to this case are: “(1) the proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the continuance; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;…(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.”

Defendant argues that there is good cause for the continuance as required by California Rules of Court Rule 3.1332 subdivision (c). Defenant sets forth that the applicable factors under Rules of Court Rule 3.1332 subdivision (d) to this case are: “(1) the proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the continuance; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;…(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.”

This is the parties’ first request for a continuance. Defendant argues that continuance is required to allow the parties to pursue mediation before incurring fees and costs for expert discovery and trial preparation. The parties are presently scheduled to mediate on November 20, 2024. Defendant maintains that the continuance would not prejudice either party; to the contrary, denying the continuance will prejudice both parties because they will be forced to expend resources to prepare for trial without being able to mediate with their agreed upon mediator. Defendant argues that a more efficient use of resources for the parties would be to mediate the case.

Plaintiff’s counsel in its declaration in support of defendant’s motion to continue trial states that he will not be available because his wife is pregnant and her due date is November 18, 2024, thus he will be away from the office in November.

The court finds that defendant has shown good cause for the continuance of trial because a continuance would allow the parties to attempt to mediate the case and continuing the trial would not prejudice any of the parties.

Based on the foregoing, the court vacates the November 19, 2024 and November 7, 2024 Final Status conference. The court sets a post mediation status conference for December 9, 2024 at 9:00 a.m.

This is the parties’ first request for a continuance. Defendant argues that continuance is required to allow the parties to pursue mediation before incurring fees and costs for expert discovery and trial preparation. The parties are presently scheduled to mediate on November 20, 2024. Defendant maintains that the continuance would not prejudice either party; to the contrary, denying the continuance will prejudice both parties because they will be forced to expend resources to prepare for trial without being able to mediate with their agreed upon mediator. Defendant argues that a more efficient use of resources for the parties would be to mediate the case.

Plaintiff’s counsel in its declaration in support of defendant’s motion to continue trial states that he will not be available because his wife is pregnant and her due date is November 18, 2024, thus he will be away from the office in November.

The court finds that defendant has shown good cause for the continuance of trial because a continuance would allow the parties to attempt to mediate the case and continuing the trial would not prejudice any of the parties.