Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV26720, Date: 2023-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV26720    Hearing Date: October 18, 2023    Dept: 29

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background 

On July 20, 2021, Plaintiff Artashes Sargsyan filed a complaint against Defendant Moushekh Michael Petrosian alleging motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. The complaint alleges that Defendant negligently operated his vehicle while driving on South St. and N. Pacific Ave in Glendale, CA 91202 such that it collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle, resulting in Plaintiff to sustain injuries.  Defendant filed an answer on September 29, 2021.

On September 18, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion to continue trial. No opposition has been filed.

Trial is set for January 11, 2024.

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).) 

Discussion

Defendant moves to continue trial to August 12, 2024, arguing good cause exists as Defense trial counsel will be on maternity leave from late December 2023 through June 2024.  (Morse Decl., ¶ 4.)  Plaintiff’s counsel stated that Plaintiff would agree to a continuance of no more than two months.  (Id., ¶ 5.)  Nonetheless, Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion.

The Court finds that there is good cause for continuing the trial date as requested.  Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, and so it appears that Plaintiff would not suffer any unfair prejudice from the requested continuance.

The motion is GRANTED.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion and continues trial to mid August 2024.  Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Final Status Conference is continued to 07/29/2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at Spring
Street Courthouse. Non-Jury Trial is continued to 08/12/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at
Spring Street Courthouse. 

Moving party to give notice.