TENTATIVE

The unopposed motion to continue trial is GRANTED. Trial is continued to May 2, 2023.

Legal Standard

Irrespective of whether it is contested, a party seeking a continuance of the trial date must do so upon noticed motion or ex parte application.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(b).)   

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.  (Id., Rule 3.1332(c).)   

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.”  (Id., Rule 3.1332(d).) 

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to continue trial for six months. Four other lawsuits have been filed against Defendant in federal court as a result of the same bus crash underlying this case. Defendant carried a liability insurance policy with a limit of $5 million. There is no additional insurance, or other means to settle the damage claims from the incident. The insurer, Redwood Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, has tendered the policy limits to the claimants, in an unallocated amount. The claimants have accepted the tender and have agreed to an arbitration procedure to allocate the $5 million amongst themselves. The arbitration procedure would allow for a final resolution of this case and the four federal cases. Thus, the only remaining issue is the allocation of the $5 million among the 30 claimants. But this case only involves six of the 30. For a number of reasons, the arbitration has been delayed. Negotiation and translating the settlement and arbitration agreements has been difficult and time- consuming. Locating and identifying medical liens for the claimants has, similarly, been difficult and time-consuming. The original arbitrator, to whom all 30 claimants had agreed, withdrew from the assignment, requiring the parties to agree to a new arbitrator. The new arbitrator, retired LASC Judge Daniel Buckley, has had limited time in which to conduct pre-arbitration hearings, which require the availability of all plaintiffs’ counsel for each case.

The Court finds there is good cause for a trial continuance as the matter needs to proceed by arbitration for an allocation the settlement among the Claimants. The Court notes no party opposes the motion and that the parties jointly seek a continuance. Thus, no party would be prejudiced. Therefore, the motion is granted. Trial is continued to May 2, 2023.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the unopposed motion to continue trial is GRANTED. Trial is continued to May 2, 2023.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.