Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV43004, Date: 2023-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV43004    Hearing Date: January 4, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is DENIED.

Legal Standard

Rule of Court 3.1332 states that to ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm, but authorizes trial continuances on an affirmative showing of good cause.  Pursuant to Rule 3.1332(d), in ruling on an application or motion for continuance, the court must consider “[t]he proximity of the trial date; [w]hether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; [t]he length of the continuance requested; . . . [t]he prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; . . . [w]hether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; [w]hether interests of justice are best served by a continuance; and [a]ny other relevant facts.”

Discussion

Here, trial is seven months away, and the next hearing is five months away.  The parties stipulate to a four-month continuance.  (Motion, Exh. 6.)

The trial court has broad discretion to determine what constitutes good cause.  (Estate of Smith (1975) 9 Cal.3d 74, 81.)  Defendant argues there is good cause, presuming the Court will grant leave to file a cross-complaint two months before trial.  (Motion, p. 5.)  However, if the Court does not grant leave to file a cross-complaint, there is no good cause for this continuance.  Therefore, this motion to continue trial is premature.  If the Court grants leave to file a cross-complaint, then it will consider a renewed motion to continue trial.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to continue trial is denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is DENIED.

Legal Standard

Rule of Court 3.1332 states that to ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm, but authorizes trial continuances on an affirmative showing of good cause.  Pursuant to Rule 3.1332(d), in ruling on an application or motion for continuance, the court must consider “[t]he proximity of the trial date; [w]hether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; [t]he length of the continuance requested; . . . [t]he prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; . . . [w]hether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; [w]hether interests of justice are best served by a continuance; and [a]ny other relevant facts.”

Discussion

Here, trial is seven months away, and the next hearing is five months away.  The parties stipulate to a four-month continuance.  (Motion, Exh. 6.)

The trial court has broad discretion to determine what constitutes good cause.  (Estate of Smith (1975) 9 Cal.3d 74, 81.)  Defendant argues there is good cause, presuming the Court will grant leave to file a cross-complaint two months before trial.  (Motion, p. 5.)  However, if the Court does not grant leave to file a cross-complaint, there is no good cause for this continuance.  Therefore, this motion to continue trial is premature.  If the Court grants leave to file a cross-complaint, then it will consider a renewed motion to continue trial.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to continue trial is denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.