Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 20STCV47832, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV47832, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47832 Hearing Date: March 26, 2024 Dept: 29

Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On December 14, 2020, Robert Bishop, III (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Salvador Penatovar, KS Trans Service (collectively “Defendants’) and Does 1 to 50 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence causes of action arising from an automobile accident occurring on December 7, 2019. Defendants filed their answer on February 17, 2021.

Trial was initially set for June 13, 2022. In May 2022, on Defendants’ ex parte application, and over Plaintiff’s objection, trial was continued to April 5, 2023. In December 2022, on the stipulation of the parties, trial was continued to July 21, 2023. In May 2023, on the stipulation of the parties, trial was continued to September 21, 2023. In August 2023, on Defendants’ ex parte application, and over Plaintiff’s objection, trial was continued to November 3, 2023. In October 2023, on Defendants’ ex parte application, and with the agreement of Plaintiff, trial was continued to March 22, 2024. On March 15, 2024, in light of this pending motion, the Court, on its own motion, continued the trial date to March 26, 2024.

On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to continue trial. Defendants filed their opposition on March 12, 2024.

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

Plaintiff is suffering from severe pain and has neck fusion surgery scheduled for April 3, with pre-operative visits scheduled for March 26 and April 2. (Bishop Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s doctor has told him that he has a high risk of paralysis if he does not have the neck surgery immediately. (Ibid.) Plaintiff has been told that the recovery time is 6-12 months. (Id., ¶ 4.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has established good cause for the requested continuance based upon his medical condition. Defendants oppose the motion and argues that good cause has not been shown but does not present any evidence that the requested continuance would cause them to suffer any unfair or undue prejudice.

Accordingly, the motion is granted.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial is GRANTED.

The trial date is continued to early October 2024. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Final Status Conference is continued to 09/25/2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at Spring
Street Courthouse. Non-Jury Trial is continued to 10/02/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at
Spring Street Courthouse.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.