Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV32119, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32119    Hearing Date: January 5, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s motion to continue trial is granted.

Trial is continued to __________, 2023.  All trial related dates will be continued consistent with the new trial date including all discovery deadlines.

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, in ruling on an application or motion for continuance, the court must consider “the unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; [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.”  (CRC 3.1332(c)(3), (d).)

Discussion

Here, trial is currently set for February 28, 2023, which is less than two months away.  The parties are currently engaged in a discovery dispute.  Even if Plaintiff serves Defendant with verified responses, Defendant will need additional time to prepare for trial.  The trial court has broad discretion to determine what constitutes good cause.  (Estate of Smith (1975) 9 Cal.3d 74, 81.)  In fact, it is “practically impossible to show reversible error in the granting of a continuance.”  (Taylor v. Bell (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1007.) However, trial courts may be reversed for refusing to grant a continuance if their actions deny a party an opportunity to present his or her case fully and fairly.  (Hays v. Viscome (1953) 122 Cal.App.2d 135, 140; Palomar Mortgage Company v. Lister (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 236, 239; Cohen v. Herbert (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 488, 495.)  Therefore, the Court errs on the side of granting a continuance.

Conclusion

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

Trial is continued to __________, 2023.  All trial related dates will be continued consistent with the new trial date including all discovery deadlines.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.