Judge Sarah J. Heidel, Case Number: 23BBCV01301, Date: 2025-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 23BBCV01301, Date: 2025-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01301 Hearing Date: March 18, 2025 Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT
DEPARTMENT V

ANDREAS GEORGE, an individual; MCKENNA WARDE, an individual; JAXON EDDY, by and through his Guardian ad Litem ANDREAS GEORGE,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

JIA LUN SHAO an individual; EYA “REI” HUA, an individual; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 23BBCV01301
Hearing Date: March 18, 2025
Time: 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND ALL RELATED DEADLINES

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of habitability issues with the rental property located at 6173 Cleon Ave., North Hollywood, CA 91606 (the “subject property”).

On June 9, 2023Plaintiffs Andreas George, McKenna Warde, and Jaxon Eddy filed a complaint against defendants Jia Lun Shao (Shao) and Eya “Rei” Hua (Rei) alleging the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Statutory Breach of the Warranty of Habitability (Civil Code §§ 1941 and 1941.1); (3) Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability; (4) Violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; (5) Private Nuisance; (6) Negligence; (7) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (8) IntentionalInfliction of Emotional Distress; (9) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; (10) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith & Fair Dealing; (11) Violation of LAMC § 45.33; and (12) Constructive Eviction.

On August 22, 2023, Shao filed a cross-complaint against plaintiffs/cross-defendants Andreas George and McKenna Warde. The parties stipulated to the filing of the second amended cross-complaint (SAXC) which was filed on April 3, 2024, alleging breach of contract and negligence.

On March 14, 2025, plaintiffs dismissed defendant Eya “rei” Hua without prejudice.

Defendant Shao filed the instant motion on February 14, 2025. No opposition has been received.

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.”

DISCUSSION

Trial is currently set for May 13, 2025. Defendant Shao brought this motion on behalf of all defendants seeking an order to continue the trial date and all deadlines related to the setting of the first trial date including all dispositive motion and discovery deadlines.

On January 28, 2025, the parties stipulated to a continuance of the trial date and all related deadlines. (Villagran Decl., ¶¶ 4, 8; Exh. A.) The parties agreed more time was necessary to complete discovery and permit time for private mediation. Additionally, defendant Shao was self represented until in or around October 17, 2024. (Villagran Decl., ¶ 7.) Defendant Shao did not participate in discovery, neither propounding nor responding to discovery. (Villagran Decl., ¶ 10.) The parties have agreed on a private mediator and are trying to schedule a mutually available date. The parties believe the mediator’s schedule will likely not permit any sessions prior to the pending trial date. (Villagran Decl., ¶ 11.) There have been no prior continuances of the trial date. (Villagran Decl., ¶ 12.)

The court finds that there is sufficient good cause for a continuance of the trial date and all related deadlines pursuant to Rules of Court rule 3.1332 subdivisions (c) and (d).

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS the motion to continue trial and related deadlines. The court continues the trial date from May 13, 2025, to September 30, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The court continues the final status conference from May 1, 2025, to September 18, 2025, at 10:00a.m. All discovery and motions will be extended with the trial date.

Defendant Shao is ordered to give notice of this ruling.