Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 21STCV44356 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV44356, Date: 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44356 Hearing Date: April 17, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The motion to continue trial and related dates is GRANTED. Trial is continued to September 21, 2023. All motion and discovery cutoff dates shall be based on the new trial date.

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 continue trial and all related deadlines to January 2024, arguing good cause exists because defense counsel will be engaged in another trial, Mota v. Clavio, 30-2021-01178143-CU-PP-CJC, in Dept. C18 of the Orange County Superior Court, and there is no one else who can try this case at defense counsel’s firm. Defendant requests a date in 2024 because of the Court’s congested calendar. This is the first continuance.

Plaintiff argues in opposition that it is too early to tell whether Mota v. Clavio will be proceeding to trial. Indeed, the court docket reveals that a Mandatory Settlement Conference in Mota v. Clavio is set for May 12, 2023, which could resolve the entire matter. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ request for a trial continuance is premature at this time and should be raised, if need be, after the Mandatory Settlement Conference in Mota v. Clavio. Plaintiff also argues that Defense counsel is seeking a trial continuance of 7 months or more based on a potential trial conflict of 7-10 days. If the Court is inclined to grant a trial continuance, Plaintiff contends the trial continuance should be no more than 30 days as there is no justification for the extremely lengthy continuance requested. Defense counsel does not provide any justification for her request to continue all discovery. Nor could she. The parties have had more than a year to conduct discovery and have diligently done so. Moreover, the only discovery issue raised in defense counsel’s moving papers has been entirely resolved.

Defendants argue in reply that there is no guarantee defense trial counsel's other trial on June 5, 2023 (Mota v. Clavio) will settle at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on May 12, 2023 in Orange County Superior Court. There is also no guarantee the Mandatory Settlement Conference will take place; at defense counsel's most recent Mandatory Settlement Conference in Orange County it went off calendar due to a shortage of settlement officers. If this motion is not granted and Mota does not settle, then defense counsel will be forced file another motion, undoubtedly an ex parte motion, within weeks of the start of the instant trial, to again request a continuance. This is a waste of the Court's time and resources. Further, defense counsel has another case set for trial on June 1, 2023, in the matter of Nguyen v. Monzonaviles, 21STCV08825, in Los Angeles Superior Court. Defense counsel will either be in trial as of June 1, 2023, on the Nguyen v. Monzonaviles case or in trial on June 5, 2023 in the older case of Mota v. Clavio in Orange County Superior Court. If Nguyen is sent out, then both the instant matter and Mota will need to be continued. Defendants argue that the length of the continuance was requested as defense counsel has a very heavy trial calendar for the remainder of the year, and has attached her trial schedule to the motion as Exhibit E.

The Court finds there is good cause to continue trial as defense counsel is unavailable due to being engaged in another trial. Further, Plaintiff has not argued Plaintiff would suffer any prejudice by a trial continuance and this would be the first trial continuance in this matter. However, the Court does not find good cause to continue trial for seven months. While defense counsel argues she has a heavy trial calendar this year, it appears her calendar will remain heavy throughout next year too, especially as the year progresses and new trial dates are entered. Moreover, it is likely other matters on her calendar may resolve by the time the trial date approaches. There being no other good cause shown, the Court finds a trial continuance to September sufficient. Thus, the motion is granted. Trial is continued to September 21, 2023. All motion and discovery cutoff dates shall be based on the new trial date.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the motion to continue trial and related dates is GRANTED. Trial is continued to September 21, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.; FSC September 7, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.. All motion and discovery cutoff dates shall be based on the new trial date.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.