Case Number: 24STCV00969    Hearing Date: March 17, 2025    Dept: 19

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: DEFENDANT LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC.’S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE.

Tentative Ruling:  The Court grants the motion.  Trial set for April 29, 2025 is advanced and continued to July 7, 2025. A Final Status Conference is scheduled for June 27, 2025. Discovery and motion cut-offs are to be based upon the new trial date.

 I.                    BACKGROUND

On January 12, 2024, many plaintiffs filed the Complaint against LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC. (Defendant.)

The initial Plaintiffs are: MICHAEL LEROY; JESSICA LEROY; CARL MILLER; STEVEN LEON; SANDRA HOU; ADAM BAXTER; PUJA KARKI; STEPHANIE MILES; GABRIEL KRAMER; CHARLES KIM; MATTHEW KAWADLER; JOSEPH CHA; JESSIE MECHEM; SOPHIE KWOK; LEON ROVNER; DYLAN STOKER; XIUWEN WU; JOANN LIAO; PAUL IDOS; YOONJIN CHANG; SEUNG JAE LEE; SEUNG MEE CHO; ARTEEN ALEXANDER ZAHIRI; TARA ZAHIRI; ROBERT MAHALARPANONT; CHUN-PIN NIEN;  and KAREN YINGYUAN LIU. (Plaintiffs.)

Plaintiffs allege they purchased single-family residences that were defectively designed and constructed.

On October 18, 2024, cases 24STCV00969 and 24STCV15486 were deemed related by Minute Order. Subsequently, on November 25, 2024, the cases were consolidated pursuant to a stipulation, adding additional plaintiffs to the action.

On February 18, 2025, the Court granted an ex parte application to set the hearing date for this motion. That same day, Plaintiffs filed a request for dismissal as to 16 of the Plaintiffs, which the Clerk entered on February 18, 2025.

II.                  LEGAL STANDARD

The decision to grant a continuance to permit discovery lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse. (Day v. Rosenthal (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 1125, 1175.)

A denial of a request for trial continuance may constitute an abuse of discretion where the court fails to consider all relevant facts and circumstances, the specific factors listed in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d), or all competing interests, especially in light of the strong public policy favoring decisions on the merits. (Oliveros v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1398-1399.)

Continuances of trial beyond the deadlines set by case management rules are required when a party needs additional time to conduct discovery and demonstrates good cause. (Polibrid Coatings, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 920, 923-924.)

Similarly, an order denying a stipulation to continue a trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (Cotton v. Starcare Medical Group, Inc. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 437, 444-445 [finding an abuse of discretion where denial of a continuance deprived a party of the opportunity to respond to demurrers], disapproved on other grounds by Quishenberry v. UnitedHealthcare, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1057, 1069.)

III.                ANALYSIS

Defendant moves to continue the trial date by approximately 60 days and to extend all trial-related deadlines, including discovery and motion cut-offs, based on the new trial date.

The motion is based on the parties’ stipulation to conduct destructive testing of the subject homes in order to determine repair cost estimates, followed by mediation.

The Court finds the motion demonstrates good cause for a trial continuance, including the need for additional time to complete discovery and pursue settlement efforts. Furthermore, the parties’ stipulation is consistent with applicable law.

In sum, the parties require more time to conduct discovery and attempt to resolve the matter.

IV.                CONCLUSION

The Court grants the unopposed motion.