Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 20STCV23474, Date: 2023-12-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV23474, Date: 2023-12-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV23474 Hearing Date: December 18, 2023 Dept: 29

Tentative

The motion to continue trial is GRANTED in part.

Background

On June 22, 2020, Plaintiffs Walter Perez, Abel Rivas and Juan Carrasco (“Plaintiffs”) filed their complaint against Defendants Maria Soledad Estrada Munoz, Isabel Varela, Daniel Varela, and Does 1 through 20, asserting causes of action for (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence and (2) Negligence Per Se stemming from a motor vehicle collision occurring on August 27, 2019.

On July 22, 2022, Defendants Isabel Varela and Daniel Varela (“Defendants”) filed a cross-complaint against Maria Soledad Estrada Munoz.

On November 15, 2023, Defendants filed this motion to continue the trial. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Code Civ. Proc. § 128(a)(8) provides that the court has the power to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice. “The power to determine when a continuance should be granted is within the discretion of the trial court.” (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603.) “A trial court has wide latitude in the matter of calendar control including the granting or denying of continuances.” (Park Motors, Inc. v. Cozens (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 12, 18.)

Each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits according to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c). The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances of good cause include:

“(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;

(4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;

(5) The addition of a new party if: (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case;

(6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or

(7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.”

(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c).)

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332 sets forth a list of non-exhaustive factors to be analyzed when determining whether good cause for a trial continuance is present. A court considers factors such as:

“(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.”

(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(d).)

Discussion

On November 15, 2023, Defendants filed this motion to continue the trial. Defendants contend good cause exists to continue the trial as Defendants have not been able to acquire discovery despite diligent efforts. (Motion, 6:8-13.) Further, Defendants have filed motions to compel discovery, but these hearings are calendared for January 23, 2024, a little over a month before the trial date of March 5, 2024. (Id.) Defendants have a second hearing to compel discovery set for February 20, 2024, a few weeks before trial. (Id., 6:14-20.)

Defendants contend that without the continuance they will be severely prejudiced because of the lack of discovery responses. (Id., 7:2-7.) Lastly, Defendants contend no party would be prejudiced by the continuance. (Id., 7:10-12.)

Plaintiffs have not filed any opposition. Accordingly, it does not appear that Plaintiffs contend that they would be unfairly prejudiced by the requested continuance.

The Court finds that Defendant has established good cause for continuing trial, as Defendant filed its motions to compel and based on the current trial date would be prejudiced from following up on any discovery responses received if successful on those motions.

Defendants have not, however, shown good cause for the requested continuance of six months. Based on the information before the Court, a four-month continuance would be more than sufficient for Defendants to obtain the rulings on the pending discovery motions, proceed with appropriate follow up (if necessary), and prepare for trial.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion to continue.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion to continue trial; Trial is continued to early July 2024. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Moving Parties are ORDERED to give notice.