Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV39668, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV39668 Hearing Date: April 27, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Defendant Schmaltz's unopposed motion to continue trial and
related dates is DENIED as moot. The motion to advance the hearing dates on the
motions to compel is DENIED.
Legal Standard
California Rules of
Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that 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).)
Code of Civil
Procedure section 2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery
proceedings. In doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave
requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery,
(2) the diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the
likelihood of interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and
(4) the length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates. (Code
Civ. Proc. § 2024.050.)
Discussion
Defendant
moves to advance the hearings on his motions to compel responses to discovery
and continue trial and all other related deadlines for 120 days, arguing good
cause exists given Plaintiff’s lack of discovery responses.
The
Court notes that when Defendant filed this motion, trial was set before the
hearing on the motions to compel. However, trial was continued to September 29,
2023, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, and thus, the motion seeking a
trial continuance is now moot.
As
for advancing the hearings on the motions to compel initials, California Rules
of Court, rule 3.1335 states as follows:
(a)
Noticed motion or application required
A
party seeking to advance, specially set, or reset a case for trial must make
this request by noticed motion or ex parte
application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division.
(b)
Grounds for motion or application
The
request may be granted only upon an affirmative showing by the moving party of
good cause based on a declaration served and filed with the motion or
application.
(Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 3.1335(a)-(b) (emphasis in original).)
However, the PI
Hub Courts have no capacity to shorten time to add hearings to their fully
booked motion calendars. Given the PI Hub Courts’ impacted calendars, the
moving party must wait until its scheduled hearing date and if necessary, file
a noticed motion to continue the trial. As a result, the Court does not find
good cause has been shown.
The motion to
advance the hearing dates is DENIED.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the motion to
continue trial and related dates is DENIED as moot. The motion to
advance the hearing dates on the motions to compel is DENIED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.