Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV27944, Date: 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV27944 Hearing Date: September 8, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial and all trial-related dates is GRANTED.
Background
On July 24, 2020, Plaintiff Jade Tuparan (“Plaintiff”) filed complaint against Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 to 25, alleging causes of action for (1) motor vehicle negligence and (2) general negligence.
On November 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint naming DOE 1 as Troi Hale.
On August 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to continue trial. This Court denied the application. (Minute Order 8/18/23.)
On August 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to continue trial. No opposition has been filed.
Trial is currently set for September 27, 2023.
Legal Standard
Per California Rules of Court (CRC), rule 3.1332, subdivision (c): the court may grant a continuance for “good cause,” which includes: (1) unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) unavailability of a party due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) unavailability of trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) substitution of trial counsel required in the interests of justice; (5) addition of a new party or other parties in regard to a new party’s involvement hasn’t had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; (6) party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which indicates the case is not ready for trial. (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)
Other relevant factors to be considered 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” (CRC Rule 3.1332(d).)
“A trial court has great discretion in the disposition of an application for a continuance. Absent a clear abuse of discretion, the court’s determination will not be disturbed.” (Estate of Smith v. Atkinson (1973) 9 Cal.3d 74, 81.) “Such discretion is abused, however, where the lack of a continuance results in the denial of a fair hearing.” (Rankin v. Curtis (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 939, 947.)
Discussion
Here, Plaintiff moves to continue trial to March 20, 2024, because of counsel’s serious health issue.
Plaintiff submitted substantial supporting evidence, including a declaration from his treating physician, in support of the ex parte application.
Defendant does not oppose the motion, and so it does not appear that any party would suffer any unfair prejudice from the requested relief.
Good cause has been shown. The motion is granted.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS the motion and continues trial to late March 2024. Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.
Street Courthouse. Non-Jury Trial is continued to 03/29/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at
Spring Street Courthouse.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.