Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV32259, Date: 2025-03-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV32259 Hearing Date: March 10, 2025 Dept: 29
May v. Torres
21STCV32259
Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial
Tentative
The motion is
granted.
Background
On
August 31, 2021, Indalicia May (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint with a single
cause of action for negligence against Nicholas Torres and Heat Wave Air
Conditioning & Heating, LLC (Defendants). The Complaint stems from a motor
vehicle collision that occurred on September 9, 2019.
The
motion now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial (the
Motion). The Motion is unopposed.
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) 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.
(Id., Rule 3.1332(c).)¿¿¿
The court may also consider the
following factors: “(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 3.1332(d).)¿¿
¿
Code of Civil Procedure section
2024.050 allows a court to grant leave to complete discovery proceedings.¿ In
doing so, a court shall consider matters relevant to the leave requested,
including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity of the discovery, (2) the
diligence in seeking the discovery or discovery motion, (3) the likelihood of
interference with the trial calendar or prejudice to a party, and (4) the
length of time that has elapsed between previous trial dates.¿ (Code Civ. Proc.
§ 2024.050.)¿
Discussion
With
this Motion, Plaintiff requests a four-month trial continuance from the
currently scheduled trial for April 25, 2025 to August 15, 2025. Plaintiff
files the Motion arguing good cause exists here for several reasons. First,
Plaintiff’s counsel will be out of the country from April 20, 2025 to April 30,
2025. The current trial is scheduled for April 25, 2025; therefore, Plaintiff’s
counsel would be unavailable. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)(2).)
Additionally, Defense counsel will be engaged in jury trials on April 22, 2025
and April 23, 2025 and will likely be unavailable for the currently scheduled
trial for the instant case.
Second, necessary discovery for both
parties has not been completed. (See Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)(6).) Plaintiff alleges a traumatic brain
injury (TBI) along with other injuries for which she is still receiving
treatment for. Additionally, Plaintiff is in the process of scheduling a
cervical epidural steroid injection for March of 2025. Moreover, because
Plaintiff is still undergoing significant treatment for her injuries, the
requested four-month continuance will allow the parties to conduct adequate
additional discovery, including obtaining updated medical records. Finally, the
parties are also considering mediation, which if successful could alleviate the
need for trial altogether. Although there have been five prior continuances,
Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for a sixth.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to
Continue Trial.
The Court CONTINUES trial to a date on or
after August 15, 2025. The Final Status Conference and all deadlines are reset
based on the new trial date.
The Court ADVISES COUNSEL AND PARTIS TO TREAT
THE TRIAL DATE AS FIRM. Given the age of the case and the number of
continuances that have already been granted, the Court will look with disfavor
on any further request to continue trial.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.